SOCIALIST IN FORM

NATIONAL IN CONTENT:
preserving late Soviet culture at
Tbilisi Palace of Rituals

Angela Wheeler
Advisor Jorge Otero-Pailos
Readers Xenia Vytuleva and Jennifer Gray
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science in Historic Preservation
Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation
Columbia University

May 2016

Abstract

The final decades of the Soviet Union are widely referred to as The Era
of Stagnation, and yet this period also produced some of the most innovative
Soviet architecture since the heady avant-garde days of the Revolution. Victor
Jorbenadzes 1985 Palace of Rituals in Tbilisi is an outstanding example of the
genre: extravagant and otherworldly, its swirling facade might be fresh in from
Las Vegas, if not from the cover of Galaxy Science Fiction. The Palace embodies
not only an aesthetic paradox, but a cultural one: a cathedral in an atheist land,
a lavish commission in a decade of economic torpor, and a dynamic synthesis of
local and international influences from behind the Iron Curtain.
These seeming contradictions oblige us to rethink the Soviet experience,
postmodernism as both a style and cultural condition, and the assumed binary
between preserving old buildings and designing new ones. Amid Leonid
Brezhnevs new ideology of developed socialism, late Soviet architectsin
ways both unexpected and underappreciatedengaged with a nascent
preservation sensibility within the Soviet Union. In a dramatic departure from the
modernist aesthetics of the 1960s, which deliberately ignored local vernacular
traditions, architects like Jorbenadze explored designs national in form
(sensitive to local historic fabric) but also socialist in content (reflective of
Soviet values). The result was a dynamic, historically-inflected postmodern
architecture that emerged from the cultural logic of late socialism.
Today, however, the very buildings intended to celebrate Georgian
heritage face their own preservation threat: they do not satisfy Georgias new
national narrative, which prefers to idealize a pre-Soviet past or trumpet a postSoviet future. Too young to be recognized for their historic value and tainted by
association with the Soviet Empire, late Soviet architecture faces decay,
demolition, or ham-fisted modification. Not only are the buildings dismissed,
but so is their approach to design, which balanced bold innovation with
sensitivity to local tradition. Contemporary Georgian architects, public officials,
and planners have reverted to a binary: constructing either pastiche historic
architecture, or new designs no more attentive to local fabric than the reviled
Soviet mass housing they replace. By preserving the legacy of late Soviet
architecture, we preserve an alternative to these two extremes, which stands to
benefit architecture new and old in Georgia.

Acknowledgments
I would first like to thank my advisor and readers: Jorge Otero-Pailos,
Xenia Vytuleva, and Jennifer Gray, without whom the scope of this thesis (and
my knowledge on the subjects included) would be much narrower. I will always
be indebted to Pez, who became conversant in several disciplines just to
provide the most rigorous feedbackand who, more importantly, insisted I
write.
This thesis represents not only my work, but also the efforts of those
committed to preserving the history of Soviet Georgia in all its formidable
complexity. I would like to thank David Bostanashvili and Levan Kalandarishvili
for their assistance in accessing rare primary source materials; Claire Pogue
Kaiser for sharing and discussing her research; and Victor Jorbenadzes
colleagues and friends who were so generous with their memories: Rolf Gross,
Vazha Orbeladze, Keto Kobakhidze, and Zurab Nijaradze. Research travel for
this project would not have been possible without the encouragement and
support of the Harriman Institute for Russian, Eurasian, and East European
Studies.
I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of my collaborators in
Georgia, many of whom accommodated travel, archive visits, translations, and
meetings on short notice. I am particularly grateful for the zenlike patience and
photographic skill of Vladimer Shioshvili, and for the unflagging enthusiasm of
William Dunbar, who skillfully opened so many doors.
Perhaps Jorbenadze himself said it best: Fortunately or unfortunately, I
always had friends who were older than me and they left this world before me.

Contents

Introduction

The Palace as Document:

Historical Significance

12

II

The Palace as Dialogue:

Architecture Old and New in the Late Soviet Era

49

III

The Palace as Legacy:

Binaries in Post-Soviet Preservation

61

Conclusion

80

Image Sources

81

Bibliography

82

Appendix

90

Introduction

1. The Palace of Rituals in 1985

Rising from the banks of the Mtkvari River, Tbilisis Palace of Rituals
dominates the landscape like an enormous abstract sculpture. Although built in
1984 under Soviet rule by a local architect, Victor Jorbenadze, it draws on
influences as diverse as Georgian ecclesiastical architecture, German avantgarde expressionism, and midcentury Corbusier. This wedding palace was
intended to imbue wedding rituals with ceremonial splendor, socialist values,
and a sense of continuity with Georgian traditions. It is, at first glance, the wrong
building in the wrong place at the wrong time: a cathedral in an atheist land, a
Soviet celebration of Georgian national heritage, a cultural innovation in an era
remembered largely for stagnation.

In fact, Tbilisis Wedding Palace only seems like an anachronism because

architectural discourse has yet to develop an adequate conceptual framework
for the ways in which architectural history unfolded behind the Iron Curtain after
Stalin. Accordingly, it is easy to miss the Palaces historical significance. Despite
growing public and professional interest in the distinctive architecture of the late
Soviet period, this stylistic sensibility lacks even a name to differentiate it from
the midcentury modernism to which it was reacting.1 An emerging body of
scholarship, however, has begun to describe the architecture that developed in
the socialist Eastern Bloc during the 1970s and 1980s as postmoderna
seeming oxymoron in light of theorizing that envisions postmodernism as a
product of capitalism.2 The existence of a late socialist postmodernism explains
not only how the Wedding Palace emerged aesthetically, but why it is significant
to Georgian and Soviet historya history that now complicates its preservation
in the post-Soviet context.
But precisely because of their Soviet origins, the aging structures of late
Soviet postmodernism point to broader issues facing the preservation of
ideologically charged architecture. The collapse of the Soviet empire has left the

See Frdric Chaubins book CCCP: Cosmic Communist Constructions Photographed (Taschen, 2012)
and the Vienna Centre of Architectures Local Modernities research project, exhibited as Trespassing
Modernities (SALT Galata Istanbul, 2013) and published as Soviet Modernism 1955-1991: Unknown
Stories (Park Books, 2013)
2
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism: or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. New York: Verso, 1991.
1

many such buildings without a natural preservation constituency. They are, in

essence, historical orphans, built under a banished regime and so now
surrounded by those who spurn the very experience that brought the
architecture into being. Tbilisis Wedding Palace embodies this dilemma. That it
was designed by a Georgian architect and incorporates Georgian vernacular
forms makes it no less Soviet, a problem in a country busily constructing a postindependence national narrative that disowns its own Soviet past.
With that in mind, this study addresses not only the architecture, but the
political climate that produced it. If western postmodernism is the product of the
cultural logic of late capitalism, this late socialist postmodernism emerged
from the cultural logic of late socialism. Previously, in the early Soviet period,
architects had been exhorted to produce designs that were national in form,
socialist in contentbut, under Leonid Brezhnev, that content became
developed socialism, a marked change from the revolutionary rhetoric of
previous administrations.3 Rather than striving for a future utopia, developed
socialism celebrated the present and made engagement with the past (even
national pasts) ideologically acceptable. Cold War victory was no longer to be
measured by military advances or even by surpassing the West consumer object
for consumer object, kitchen-debate style. Triumph, argued Soviet ideologues,
Sandle, M. (2002). Brezhnev and Developed Socialism: The Ideology of Zastoi? Brezhnev Reconsidered. E.
Bacon. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 166.
3

would come instead from offering a superior quality of life. This decidedly
subjective notion focused not on consumer durables but lifes intangibles,
particularly cultural activities. It was to be promoted through the provision of
public amenities: a socialism of Black Sea holidays, youth camps, and
ethnographic dance troupes. Developed socialism fostered a cosmopolitan
atmosphere, patronized national arts and culture, and gave rise to the Soviet
Unions first sustained efforts at preserving of historic districts. Cultural
institutions proliferated, often requiring not simply more buildings but also a
fresh architecture suitable for the new ideologyarchitecture like Victor
Jorbenadzes.
With the communist future a thing of the past, developed socialism
fostered and legitimated historicism in ways that redirected Soviet art from
utopia.4 This historical consciousness provided architects with a newand now
officially approvedstylistic idiom inspired by local and traditional architecture.
Late Soviet architects increasingly broke with the international modernism
endorsed under Khrushchev and produced a new, postmodern style animated
by the dynamics of developed socialism.
Developed socialisms impact on architecture is revealed with particular
clarity in wedding palaces, a typology almost entirely endemic to socialism. In
Erjavec, A. (2003). Introduction. Postmodernism and the Postsocialist Condition: Politicized Art Under
Late Socialism. ed. A. Erjavec. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 20.
4

the 1960s, wedding palaces were modest structures that functioned primarily as
a tool for atheist propagandaaiming to bring the milestones of life in line with
the dogma of the state while still acknowledging the public taste for ritual.
Under developed socialism, however, wedding palace architects were able to
experiment in ways they had not been able to since the avant-garde heyday of
the 1920s. Architects (who now often worked as preservationists) freely mined
local and international traditions, and their work was often judged by its ability
to reinvent tradition rather than to revive it or break from it entirely.
Under developed socialism, architects engaged in a debate familiar to
contemporary preservationists: how to design innovative new architecture that
remained sensitive to the past. Tbilisis Palace of Ritualswith its celebration of
historic Georgian architecture, eclectic international influences, and origins in
Soviet ideologyembodies the cosmopolitanism of the era and provides an
instructive example for Georgian architects today. Unfortunately, these very
qualities are what pose a challenge to preserving Soviet architecture in the
Republic of Georgia. Intended to serve a constituency that was both Soviet and
Georgian, the Wedding Palace has no place in a post-Soviet national narrative
constructed around the separation of those two identities. With major
contemporary cultural institutions portraying the entire Soviet period as an

occupation, Soviet architecture, even if designed by Georgians to reflect

Georgian heritage, are tainted by association.5
***
Given that archival sources from the period are neither translated nor
digitized, research specific to the building and architectalong with site visits
and photographywas conducted in Georgia in summer 2015. In November
2015, the author also interviewed Dr. Rolf Gross, a German-American physicist
who befriended Jorbenadze during two state-sponsored science exchange visits
to Tbilisi in 1980 and 1984. As these visits fortuitously coincided with the
construction of the Wedding Palace, Dr. Gross was able to discuss the design
and bureaucratic process with Jorbenadze, and his photos represent the only
high-quality documentation of both early and late construction. Further archival
research and interviews with Jorbenadzes former colleagues were completed in
January 2016. Interviewees generously provided additional primary sources from
their private collections. To provide greater context regarding late Soviet
architectural discourse, the author reviewed all copies of Arkhitektura SSSR6

The Museum of Soviet Occupation, drawing liberally on the Holocaust museum genre, was opened in
2006 with support from Saakashvilis presidential extra-budgetary fund.
< http://museum.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=53>
6
Architecture of the USSR (published in Russian from 1933 to 1991, with some interruption) was the most
widely distributed Soviet publication dedicated to architecture, planning, and design theory.
5

from 1976 to 1990 at Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library at Columbia
University.
Chapter 1 will make a case for the historical significance of Tbilisis Palace
of Rituals, examining the political climate of developed socialism in which it
emerged. The Palace, and many other buildings of its era, have only recently
come to the attention of architectural historians, and are frequent subjects of
public and professional misconceptions. This chapter will explore how the
seeming paradoxes of the Palace are actually products of the complex cultural
logic of late socialism.
Chapter 2 will delve into late Soviet architectural discourse in further
detail, including critical reception of the Palace. Analyzing the concerns of
Jorbenadze and his colleagues reveals a preoccupation with historic context
(many architects of the period also worked as preservationists at the same time
they were developing new projects) and extensive professional debate
surrounding what preservationists today refer to as infill design: the sensitive
incorporation of new architecture into historic environments. Not only does the
existence of such a debate upend contemporary notions of Soviet architecture
as context-blind, but it also provides an instructive lesson for architecture in
Georgia today, which struggles to find a middle ground between historical
pastiche and incompatible new construction.
10

Chapter 3 will provide an overview of the contemporary preservation

climate in Georgia, and its implications for buildings old and new. Rather than
the usual post-Soviet specter of funding shortages, the greatest challenge to
preserving Georgian architecture (whether a traditional Old Tbilisi house from
1895 or the Palace of Rituals from 1985) is largely a matter of identity. The
chapter will focus on the afterlife of late Soviet buildings, and how the very
reasons for their significance are what put them in conflict with contemporary
Georgias post-Soviet national narrative.
The Palace of Rituals embodies an overlooked period in Soviet and
Georgian history when architects engaged in lively debate about the effects of
their new designs on the existing built environment. While the buildings of its
era are historically and aesthetically significant, this thesis contends that their
primary value lies in their capacity to revive discussion about the role of every
architect as a preservationist. Jorbenadzes designs are a testament to the idea
that new architecture can be historically informed without sacrificing bold
innovation, a lesson that would serve all Georgian architecture well.

11

1.
The Palace as Document:
Historical Significance
Is it possible to build real socialism in Yerevan?
Yes, but better in Georgia.
Radio Yerevan Q&A7

That the late Soviet Era of Stagnation produced dynamic, ideologically

engaged yet culturally specific institutions like Tbilisis Palace of Rituals should
prompt a reexamination of the interrelated cultural and political forces at work in
the late Soviet period. As an institution, the Palace was part of a campaign to
eradicate what Soviet authorities deemed harmful traditions,8 like church
weddings. Wedding palaces, provided by local governments were offered as a
state-approved secular alternative, but changing traditions was not simply a
matter of replacing local customs with standardized buildings and homogenized
procedures handed down from Moscow. The history of Tbilisis Palace of Rituals
illustrates how the political climate of developed socialism shifted the function
of wedding palaces from tools of atheist propaganda to expressions of national
culture.

Radio Yerevan, popular across the Eastern Bloc from the 1960s, was known for its Q&A format jokes about
the realities of real socialism. This joke is from Benedikt Sarnovs Our Soviet Newspeak: A Short
Encyclopedia of Real Socialism (2002, in Russian).
8
Pogue Kaiser, C. (2015). Lived Nationality: Policy and Practice in Soviet Georgia, 1945-1978. History PhD.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, pp. 240.
7

12

Socialism under Brezhnev actively encouraged expressions of national

culture through art and architecture. This upends the common Cold War binary
that distorts contemporary understandings of the late Soviet experience,
reducing any expression of local culture to a dynamic of totalitarian state
oppression and national dissidence.9 Public culture was, in fact, a matter of
negotiation between center and periphery.
This chapter will examine the ways in which the Palace of Rituals emerged
from Soviet policies, and how ritual architecture as a typology was particularly
suited for dramatic architectural experiment. As historian Owen Hatherley
observes, This was not supposed to be an economy of great one-offs, but one
of mass production of durable goods whose individuality or specialness was
irrelevant. That conflicts here with the need to provide a special space for
collective or ritual experience, providing some of the richest pure architecture
in Eastern Europe, of any era.10

Platt, Kevin M.F. and Benjamin Nathans. (2011) Socialist in Form, Indeterminate in Content: The Ins and
Outs of Late Soviet Culture. Ab Imperio, pp. 301.
10
Hatherley, O. (2015). Landscapes of Communism. London: Allen Lane, pp. 149.
9

13

The Cultural Logic of Late Socialism

Brezhnevs Developed Socialism and Late Soviet Culture

The very existence of Tbilisis Palace of Rituals raises questions about the
ideological climate in which it was built: Why was such a lavish structure, serving
largely symbolic purposes, constructed on the periphery of the Soviet Union at
the twilight of its rule? How, under an avowedly atheist regime that controlled all
architectural commissions and means of production, did a local architect win
approval for what he described as a cathedral? The Palace embodies a
variation of the French concept of architecture parlantearchitecture that
illustrates its use or identity.11 Given that all Soviet architecture was subject to
official approval, in this case, the Palace also provides information about the
state it represents, and the implications of the states policies for architecture.
The Palace of Rituals emerged in the context of developed socialism,12
a period of relative stability lasting from the early 1970s through the perestroika
reforms of the mid-1980s. Although the era is commonly depicted as one of
stagnation, developed socialism represented a marked shift in Soviet ideology,
introducing subtle but significant changes in public culture, nationality policy,
andas a consequencein architecture. General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev
For example, Claude Nicolas Ledouxs plan for a brothel in the shape of a phallus. Bergdoll, Barry. (1994)
Leon Vaudoyer: Historicism in the Age of Industry. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 109.
12
Variously translated as real socialism or the clumsy actually existing socialism.
11

14

first referred to the Soviet Union as a developed socialist society in 1967a

novel term in Soviet ideological discourse, which up until that point had
imagined socialism as merely a temporary step in the march towards communist
utopia.13 How, then, could socialism be developed, and how could it be
reconciled with previous theory? Brezhnev openly declared the policy in 1971,
and dedicated significant time to elaborating on its definition in publications of
Marxist theory. In a 1977 treatise, Brezhnev defines developed socialism as a
natural stage in the socio-economic maturing of the new system in the
framework of the first phase of the communist formation. This, to use Lenins
words, is the full, established socialism from which the gradual transition to
communism begins.14
This maturing stage had no set time frame, unlike Khrushchevs claim at
the 1961 party congress that full communism would be achieved by 1980.
American political scientist Alfred Evans viewed developed socialism as a
product of Brezhnevs concern that the public would make unfavorable
comparisons between the Marxian ideal and the Soviet social reality when that
date arrived, and so he proposed a new periodization of the Soviet
experience to make that reality ideologically acceptable.15 Developed socialism

13
14
15

Evans, A. (1977). Developed Socialism in Soviet Ideology. Soviet Studies 29(3), pp. 412.
Brezhnev, L. (1977). A Historic Stage on the Road to Communism. World Marxist Review 22(12), pp. 3.
Evans, A. (1977), pp. 412.

15

was, in many ways, a policy of inertia. Brezhnev insisted that Marxs plan for the
communist transition included not a grain of Utopia. No flights of fantasy.16 In
this sense, Evans observes, developed socialism reflects a trend probably
common to any ideological movement that remains and power for a long time:
the increasing identification of the ideal with the main features of actual society.
As institutions become ends, goals are redefined gradually to resemble the
characteristics of established structures.17
Developed socialism represented a kind of rebranding, backing away
from the rhetoric of future utopia and encouraging the public, instead, to be
content with the benefits of present development. Party officials made no
further claims about when, exactly, full communism would be achieved. The
previous administrations promise of parity with the West in productivity,
consumption, and military strength was abandoned in favor of a more subjective
measurement of Soviet superiority: quality of life. Developed socialism claimed
to offer a superior quality of life through the provision of public goods: free
education, social housing, and cultural activities available to all.18 Despite overall
economic stagnation, public funding was lavished upon museums, theatres, and
other institutions of cultural leisure. Critically for architecture, this state support
Brezhnev, L. (1977), pp. 5.
Evans, A. (1977), pp. 414.
18
Shlapentokh, V. (2004). Developed Socialism. Encyclopedia of Russian History. Boston: Cengage
Learning. Online.
16
17

16

often took a nationally specific form. Ethnographic arts and preservation of

regional heritage acquired new a purpose and urgency.
Nationality, in particular, played a central role in developed socialisms
cultural policy. Nationalism had been recruited to the Soviet cause from the days
of the revolution,19 but only under developed socialism did it become a
component of quality of life. Public discussion regarding the role of national
cultures in the Soviet project became increasingly acceptable after Stalins
death, which brought an end to the widespread use of terror as a means of
ensuring loyalty to central authorities.20 By the early 1960s, Khrushchev had also
initiated a measured process of devolution, encouraging local soviets to take
greater control of their own affairs instead of relying on central planning.
Brezhnevs developed socialism in the following decade went a step further,
creating official controlled spheres for the expression of non-Russian national
identities.21
But scholars of the era argue that developed socialism needed nationality
to survive as much as nationality needed developed socialism to flourish.
Comparing established socialist regimes around the world, Ale Erjavec points

For a study of early Soviet ethnic policies, see Terry Martins The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and
Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939 (2001, Cornell University Press).
20
Pogue Kaiser, C. (2015). Lived Nationality: Policy and Practice in Soviet Georgia, 1945-1978. PhD in
History. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, pp. 201.
21
Hanson, S. (2006). The Brezhnev Era. The Cambridge History of Russia ed. R. G. Suny. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (3): 292315.
19

17

to an overuse of culture as a replacement for politics, with countries

developing their own brands of socialism: developed socialism (Soviet
Union), socialism with a human face (Czechoslovakia and Poland), selfreliance (Yugoslavia and North Korea), and socialism with Chinese
characteristics. By the 1970s, the global proletarian revolution has fractured
into a variety of national socialisms.22 Yuri Slezkine claims that the official
discourse of developed socialism merely retained the language of class as
window dressing and relied on nationality to prop up the system.23
Accordingly, the Soviet Unions new policy of developed socialism ideologically
legitimized and financially supported architecture that looked to national
traditions in ways that would break from the modernist aesthetics that had
dominated under Khrushchev. Although this new aesthetic sensibility came to
manifest itself in a wide variety of Soviet architecture in the 1970s and 80s, one
typology made for an unexpectedly apt vessel for its purposes: the wedding
palace.

Erjavec, A. (2003). Introduction. Postmodernism and the Postsocialist Condition: Politicized Art Under
Late Socialism. ed. A. Erjavec. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 10, 12.
23
Slezkine, Y. (1994). The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic
Particularism. Slavic Review 53(2), pp. 450.
22

18

Rites and Rituals

In keeping with its commitment to quality of life, developed socialism
supported cultural institutions that would be accessible to allin contrast to the
capitalist West, where culture was reserved for the paying elite. Wedding
palaces had emerged as an architectural typology and social institution in the
1960s, as a component of the Khrushchev administrations attempt to promote
state atheism. As such, wedding palaces might seem like an unusual candidate
for developed socialisms cultural investment. Paradoxically, an institution
originally intended to promote a homogenized secular culture and stamp out
local religious traditions became a means of celebrating national culture.
Early Soviet weddings were primarily administrative affairs, carried out in
registration offices called ZAGS,24 where local officials bureaucratically
processed births, marriages, and deaths. A wedding (and, likewise, a divorce)
was as simple as signing a form, with any other commemoration left to the
couple. The ceremonies may have been unexciting, but secularization of
marriage and liberalization of divorce represented the most progressive family
legislation in the world at the time.25 Dziga Vertovs 1929 film Man with a Movie
Camera conveys the mixed feelings surrounding civil marriage and divorce in a
Russian: zapis aktov grazhdanskovo sostoyaniya, recording of civil acts.
Prohibition of divorce within the Orthodox Church meant that before the Revolution, most women could
not obtain a divorce even in cases of abuse. See William Moskoffs Divorce in the USSR in the May 1983
Journal of Marriage and Family, pp. 420.
24
25

19

scene that shows one couple registering to get married immediately followed by
another registering for divorceeach ceremony is so perfunctory that Vertov
must provide images of the marriage and divorce certificates so viewers can tell
them apart. The scenes are intercut with footage of tram signal switches, and
conclude with two trams meeting and parting ways as quickly and impersonally
as the couples.

2. Civil marriage (above) and divorce (below) ceremonies are virtually indistinguishable in Dziga
Vertovs Man With a Movie Camera (1929)

To counter this impersonality, many Soviet couples completed the

required ZAGS registration, but followed the civil procedure with a more
traditional church ceremony. Although this practice was officially condemned,
Soviet authorities did not prioritize an alternative until the late 1950s, when the

20

space race victory of the Sputnik launch prompted a revival of scientific atheism
as the religion of the Soviet Union. Anthropologist Christel Lane argues that the
demand for new rituals in this period also arose once the struggle for economic
survival and the deprivations of the early postwar period had eased up, and
more time and money for personal concerns were available.26
The Soviet media increasingly discussed new secular rites, and some
republics even began experimenting with them, but the Khrushchev
administration made no official decree regarding rituals until 1963. This lag
between official mandate and public practice speaks to the shifting balance of
power between center and periphery after Stalin. It was not Russia, but the
Baltic states that took the lead in combating the opiate of the masses with
new rites tailored to replace baptism, confirmation, and marriage. In 1957, an
Uzbek Komsomol27 chapter organized the first secular wedding, inspiring
authorities in Leningrad to draft an official wedding rite for distribution across
the Soviet Union. The new ritual called for an appropriately grand venue, and so
a former noblemans mansion was requisitioned, with few modifications to the
original aristocratic dcor (other than the obligatory bust of Lenin).28 The first

Lane, C. (1981). The Rites of Rulers: Ritual in Industrial Societythe Soviet Case. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 34.
27
All-Union Leninist Young Communist League, a quasi-independent youth division of Communist Party.
Komsomol likely spearheaded the marriage rite movement as its membership demographic (14-28 year
olds) encompassed the average age at first marriage across the republics.
28
Komsomolskaya Pravda, 27 October 1959.
26

21

wedding, held in 1959 on the forty-second anniversary of the October

Revolution, met with global media coverage. A report from Life Magazine
contrasts a businesslike and perfunctoryold-fashioned Soviet marriage in a
drab registration office with a modern palace marriage, but doesnt fail to
point out the irony of the czarist setting for a progressive proletarian ritual.29

3. Leningrad Wedding Palace, November 1959

Soviet officials clearly felt much the same concern, and architecture
became central to the secular wedding initiative even before a Union-wide
policy was established. A Russian-authored 1960 article for the American
academic journal Marriage and Family Living, for example, describes the
planned building campaign for new wedding palaces in Moscow, laying out an
architectural design template in the process: Marriage ceremonies will be
29

A Marriage Palace in Leningrad, Life Magazine, 18 January 1960, pp. 109.

22

conducted in the two-story buildings of modest designThis project envisages

the wide application of reinforced concrete, mirror glass, and aluminum.30 In
keeping with Khrushchevs embrace of mass-produced modernism, the plan
calls for original and simple interiors that make use of prefabricated materials,
but also suggests such lavish touches as stained glass, fountains, allegorical
statues, and chandeliers. The author describes how visitors proceed through the
space according to the new ritual choreography, first entering a spacious
vestibule overlooking a planted courtyard, continuing to a main hall (adjoined
by a registration office, document repository, banqueting hall, and souvenir
shop), moving upstairs to waiting rooms before entering the grand ceremonial
hall (150 sq. meters of floorspace), and finally descending a wide staircase to a
first floor banquet hall. This method not only created an appropriately theatrical
atmosphere, but also allowed weddings to be conducted in an assembly-line
fashion, with each party allotted a few minutes in each room before being
ushered onwards.31

Gribov, I. (1960). Marriage Palaces in Moscow. Marriage and Family Living 22(3), pp. 274.
For an account of a typical wedding palace ceremony in the early 1960s, see pages 48-53 of Loren
Grahams Moscow Stories (Indiana University Press, 2006).
30
31

23

4. 1960s wedding palace designs from Donetsk and Moscow

With wedding palace designs already circulating in the media, the party
Central Committees Ideological Commission began developing official policies
to reduce participation in religious rituals. In 1963, the commission issued a
resolution on the more active introduction into the life of the Soviet people of
non-religious holidays and rites, and instructed local soviets to construct
palaces of happiness.32 The wedding rite was the first of all the life-cycle
rituals to be officially instituted, and was the most widely established across the
Soviet republics. By 1970, only a decade after the first wedding palace opened
in Leningrad, the Soviet Union was home to six hundred such institutionsbut it
was not nearly enough.33 By the mid-1960s, the demand for ceremonies in a
wedding palace (rather than a humble ZAGS) so far exceeded supply that only
about one-third of couples could be accommodated. Wait lists could stretch for
Anderson, J. (1994). Religion, State, and Politics in the Soviet Union and Successor States. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 48.
33
Lane, C. (1981), pp. 75.
32

24

weeksa not-unusual command economy failure that local officials began

insisting was in fact an intentional measure to prevent hasty marriages and thus
lower the divorce rate.34 In Moscow, a wedding palace reservation required that
the union be the first marriage for at least one of the partners.35

34

Moscow Elopements Now Impossible. United Press International. The Daily Tar Heel, 19 May 1966, pp.

5.
35

Izvestiya, 22 September 1973:5.

25

A Wedding Palace for Tbilisi

Georgia faced similarly daunting demand well into the 1970s, when the
Department of Propaganda and Agitation initiated a campaign against harmful
traditions, customs, ceremonies, holidays, and the universal introduction of new
Soviet, socialist ones.36 By the time Eduard Shevardnadze rose to power as
First Secretary of the Georgian Communist Party in 1972, existing secular ritual
institutions were woefully inadequate, with wedding palaces only in the cities of
Tbilisi and Rustavi (neither of which had banquet halls). In the rest of the country,
options for couples were limited to ZAGS and makeshift venues such as Houses
of Culture, theaters, or sports facilities.37 Party research revealed that one
thousand couples held church weddings in 1974, but the director of the Tbilisi
Palace of Marriage speculated that the number was even higher, as the majority
of couples (3,000 - 4,000 per year) would also follow their legal ceremony at the
Palace with a more traditional one at the historic Svetitskhoveli Cathedral in
nearby Mtskheta.38
And it was precisely this problem that Djorbenadzes wedding palace for
Tbilisi was intended to address. The Department of Agitation and Propaganda
proposed a plan to completely destroy the churchs plans to attract the youth

36
37
38

Pogue Kaiser, C. (2015), pp. 239.

Ibid, pp. 246.
Ibid, pp. 247.

26

to its traditional ritual fuss,39 largely by creating its own traditional ritual fuss. In
her research on late Soviet nation-building policies in Georgia, historian Claire
Pogue Kaiser describes a proposed marriage rite for wedding palace
ceremonies, which employs Georgian traditions (even variations on church
wedding practices) to create a sense of cultural continuity:
The proposals for Sovietizing the traditional Georgian marriage
ceremony included replacing the newlyweds passing under a cross with
passing under the national flag and state seal and encouraging them
to wear national costumesThe Ministry of Culture was to print a special
edition of Rustavelis epic vepxistqaosani (The Knight in the Panther
Skin) to give as a gift from Soviet power to newlyweds at ZAGS or
wedding palaces, along with the keys to their new apartment. Rustavelis
twelfth-century epic acts as a quasi-sacred text among Georgians, as it
contains guidelines for chivalry, honor, hospitality, familial relations, and
femininity, effectively canonized from the 1930s by Soviet nation-building
policies. Bestowing a copy of this work with a set of apartment keys to a
newlywed couple epitomizes the fusion of tradition and modernity
sought by Soviet Georgian leadership in the 1960s and 1970s.40

39
40

Ibid, pp. 245.

Pogue Kaiser, C. (2015), pp. 246-247.

27

5. Tbilisi Wedding House on Kamo Street (1967)

Tbilisis main wedding registry was located on Kamo Street in the first
floor of a late Stalin-era residential building, designed by architect Shota
Kavlashvili.41 The modesty of the venue can be inferred from its Georgian title: a
wedding house (sakhli) not a palace (sasakhle). After wedding legislation
had been in place for about a decade, wedding palaces across the Soviet Union
became municipal showpieces and part of local culture. This represents a
marked shift from the original intentions of ritual policy under Khrushchev (who
conceived of wedding palaces as a tool in his anti-religious campaign) to

The wedding house continues to function as a small events venue today, although the faade has been
changed slightly to accommodate shops. Kavlashvili would go on to design Tbilisis 1988 Archaeology
Museum.
41

28

Brezhnev (whose developed socialism supported wedding palaces as public

goods; their role in state atheism now secondary to their role in public culture).
Wedding palaces of the 1970s and 80s were no longer the modest, massproducible designs proposed in the 1960s. They increasingly represented
original designs and appeared on postcards and tourism literature alongside
other examples of local culture like historic monuments or ethnographic
celebrations.

6. (clockwise from top left) late Soviet wedding palaces in Vilnius (1974), Kiev (1982), Bishkek
(1987), and Tallinn (1988).

When Tbilisi began considering a wedding palace in the 1970s, the

stakes had already been raised by examples across the Soviet Union. Any new
building would have to become an instant icon: a premier institution that would
proclaim Tbilisis membership among other cultural capitals of the Soviet Union.

29

Ideally, that building would be accessible to locals and visitors alike, occupying
prime real estate in central Tbilisi, where Soviet (and, increasingly, international)
visitors flocked to marvel at its historic charms. Accordingly, Tbilisis Palace of
Rituals would have to balance bold new design with consideration for
surrounding historic buildingsa challenge familiar to architects and
preservationists today.
The Palace of Rituals project began in 1976, when architect Victor
Jorbenadze was awarded a commission to create a grander alternative to the
modest wedding registration office on Kamo Street. According to colleague
Vazha Orbeladze, Jorbenadze was gifted the commission, although the
municipal planning office held an official competition for show.42 Jorbenadze
had previously worked on ritual architecture projects, and had established a
reputation as both an innovative designer and respected scholar of Georgian
architectural history.
Victor Jorbenadzes life spans almost the entire Soviet experience in
Georgia: he was born 1925, only a few years after Georgia was incorporated into
the Soviet Union, and died in 1999, as Georgia was still emerging from the postSoviet chaos of independence. Jorbenadze enjoyed a privileged childhood with
private tutors in music, German, and French, as his mother was one of the
42

Orbeladze, V. (2016). Interview by Angela Wheeler and Vladimer Shioshvili. Tbilisi, 12 January 2016.

30

countrys top obstetric physicians: a high-status position without as much

ideological risk as, say, a top poet or bureaucrat. He avoided the draft while
studying architecture at the Georgian Polytechnic Institute in Tbilisi from 19401946, and worked as a planner for the Ministry of Agriculture in his hometown of
Samtredia before enrolling in the State Design Institute (Giprogor) in Moscow
from 1952-1956. Following an apprenticeship with Stalinist architect Mikhail
Parusnikov, Jorbenadze returned to Tbilisi in 1957, working first as chief
architect of Tbilisis historic Kalinin district,43 and then at the design and costestimation bureau of the Tbilisi executive committee. From 1959 he began work
for the municipal planning and design workshop TbilQalaqProekt (Tbilisi City
Project), where he spent the rest of his career.44

7. Jorbenadze with actress Nato Vachnadze in the late 1950s-early 1960s

Present-day Mtatsminda, Sololaki, and Rustaveli Avenue neighborhoods. These neighborhoods comprise
Tbilisis medieval core and the Russian Imperial-era center.
44
Bostanashvili, D. (2013). Butza: Victor Djorbenadze Architect. Tbilisi, Cezanne Printing House, pp. 19
43

31

Known as a number one dandy,45 Jorbenadze embodied the

cosmopolitan spirit of the late Soviet period. He entertained a circle of major
figures in Tbilisis cultural scene throughout his life, including actress Nato
Vachnadze, artist Yuri Mechitov, and director Sergei Parajanov (with whom he
was particularly close).46 He took full advantage of the international windows
opened by Khrushchevs Thaw, reading widely on historic and contemporary
architecture abroad, and visiting Germany and even India (apparently insisting
that Soviet tourism officials change the route so he could attend a conference in
Chandigarh and see Corbusiers work).47 He was also an ardent preservation
advocate, traveling around Georgia and documenting historic architecture at his
own expense. An article for the Union-wide architecture journal refers to his
famous studies of tetraconch churches.48
Jorbenadze expertly balanced Soviet and Georgian identities to his
advantage: when writing on the medieval Georgian architectural ensemble at
Mtskheta, he discussed the contribution of a hydroelectric dams Lenin statue;49
when Tbilisis imperial-era city hall was threatened by a 1970s urban renewal
scheme, he invoked its role as the setting of Georgias Bolshevik Revolution to
Ibid, pp. 195
Tsereteli, K. (1997). Sergei Parajanov: Collage Against the Background of Self-PortraitLife is a Play.
Nizhny Novgorod: Dekom, pp. 86-89.
47
Orbeladze, Vazha. Interview by Angela Wheeler and Vladimer Shioshvili. Tbilisi, 12 January 2016.
48
Hait, V. (1987). Celebrations Palace in Tbilisi Arkhitektura SSSR [Architecture USSR] (4), pp. 42.
49
Djorbenadze, V. (1958). Architectural Scale of the Ensemble of Mtskheta, the First Capital of Georgia.
Sabchota Khelovneba [Soviet Artin Georgian] (9).
45
46

32

justify its historical significance; when he wanted a new apartment, he asked City
Hall if he might restore a former noblemans house so as to instruct the
proletariat on how the aristocracy lived before the Revolutionand he promptly
moved in. He was dismissive of the placeless, mass-produced modernism that
dominated Soviet architecture in the 1960s and early 1970s, joking that even he
had been forced to build a khrushchovka.50 Jorbenadze instead preferred to
take historical context into account, a challenge he attempted to address in his
early work.

8. Jorbenadzes early 1970s design for a dormitory at Tbilisis Professional-Technical University.

Nickname for the cheap, prefabricated three to five-story apartment buildings championed by Nikita
Khrushchev as the solution to urban housing shortages.
50

33

Jorbenadze had an interest in the Soviet Unions new ritual architecture

reaching back to the 1960s, when he collaborated on memorial complexes for
Tbilisis Kukia, Peter-Paul, and Dighomi cemeteries. This resume earned him his
first independent commission: a memorial complex for the new Mukhatgverdi
Cemetery, located along a ridge on the outskirts of Tbilisi. Rather than design
one building, Jorbenadze designed fouran office, a water tower, a ceremonial
hall, and a stonecutting workshoparranged like follies in the hilly landscape.
He drew on Le Corbusiers 1955 Chapel of Notre Dame du Haut, with its
textured stucco walls and sculptural form, seeking to capture a different angle or
element of the chapel in each buildingearning him the nickname Jorbusier
among his colleagues.51 Though small, the buildings provide an early glimpse of
the forms Jorbenadze would later employ at the Palace of Rituals.

51

Orbeladze, Vazha. Interview by Angela Wheeler and Vladimer Shioshvili. Tbilisi, 12 January 2016.

34

9. Jorbenadzes Mukhatgverdi buildings and elements of Le Corbusiers Notre Dame du Haut

While completing the Mukhatgverdi complex 1974, Jorbenadze was

awarded another commission for a small literary museum in the provincial town
of Kvareli. Originally planned as an extension onto national poet Ilia
Chavchavadzes birthplace, Jorbenadze pushed for a freestanding museum,
hoping both to preserve the historic structure and to fully realize his creative

35

ambitions.52 Working with architectural historian and designer Keto Kobakhidze,

he designed another small stucco building that reflects the Corbusian influence
found at Mukhatgverdi, but also experiments with other elements that would
appear later at the Palace of Rituals, like stained glass and a spiraling tower.

10. The Ilia Chavchavadze Museum in Kvareli

Jorbenadze had, in fact, come up with his idea for the Wedding Palace in
1970, encouraged by Sergei Parajanov.53 The exterior was inspired by Erich
Mendelsohns Einstein Tower (1921), Rudolf Steiners the Goetheanum (19241928) and the Boiler House in Dornach (1913-1915), and Le Corbusiers Notre
Dame du Haut (1955).54 But it also incorporated elements of ecclesiastical

52
53
54

Kobakhidze, Keto. Interview by Angela Wheeler and Vladimer Shioshvili. Tbilisi, 13 January 2016.
Bostanashvili, D. (2013), pp. 151.
Bostanashvili, S. (1985). Palace of Rituals of Tbilisi. Sabchota Khelovneba [Soviet Art] (8).

36

architecture: a bell tower, stained glass, frescoes, and an altar. Eduard

Shevardnadze, the recently-appointed First Secretary of the Georgian
Communist Party, took special interest in promoting Georgian arts and culture
and personally endorsed the project.55 When the municipal planning committee
brought up concerns that the building evoked religious imagery, Jorbenadze
freely admitted his goal was to produce a cathedralcreating a minor uproar
quelled by Shevardnadze himself, who argued: we, the communists, study a lot
from history, and particularly the history which overcame all the difficulties of
time, and the church is such an institution; people do like churches, and if this is
the point, it will add a positive merit to a modern building.56

11. International influences for the Palace exterior: Rudolf Steiners Boiler House (1915), Erich
Mendolsohns Einstein Tower (1921), Le Corbusiers Notre Dame du Haut (1955)

55
56

Zurab Nijaradze. Interview by Angela Wheeler and Vladimer Shioshvili. 15 January 2016.
Bostanashvili, D. (2013), pp. 141.

37

The Palace of Rituals was a project of mutual benefit to the architect and
to the party secretary. Shevardnadze instituted a municipal holiday called
Tbilisoba in October 1979, creating a modern-day harvest festival that
celebrated Tbilisi culture and heritage. The same ritual campaign that produced
wedding palaces also produced these new holidays, which were intended to
provide secular alternatives for local saints days and other religious holidays. In
an interesting rhetorical move, Soviet Georgian propagandists claimed that by
reinstituting religious holidays as secular celebrations, they were in fact reappropriating ancient, authentically Georgian traditions that had been
hijacked by the Church.57 Architecture was a major component of Tbilisoba,
which was held in Old Tbilisi, the citys historic quarter. In preparation, party
authorities commissioned restorations of old buildings and called for new
buildings to be premiered as a showcase of the citys architectural innovation.
Shevardnadze intended the Palace of Rituals to be the centerpiece of Tbilisoba
1984, and was determined to provide Jorbenadze with whatever materials and
expertise necessary to make the project sufficiently impressive.
With support from the highest party authorities, Jorbenadze began
refining his ambitious design. The Palace was originally intended to occupy the

57

Pogue Kaiser, C. (2015), pp. 244.

38

corner of a park in Vake, a well-heeled residential district, but other architects

objected to construction in a park space, even for a cultural institution.58 Vake
Park was also located a considerable distance from the medieval core of Tbilisi.
A new site was selected atop a ridge along the banks of the Mtkvari River,
commanding a panorama of the citys historic neighborhoods and ensuring that
the palace would be visible from all directions. The change in site prompted a
change in design: now set into a slope rather than a flat grade, Jorbenadze was
able to increase the number of floors and arrange a cascade of terraces
descending from the entrance, substantially increasing the scale of the project.
From the Wedding Palace, the terraces afforded a panoramic view across the
river to Old Tbilisi; from Old Tbilisi, the terraces created an illusion of even
greater height for a building that already dominated the embankment.59

58
59

Orbeladze, Vazha. Interview by Angela Wheeler and Vladimer Shioshvili. Tbilisi, 12 January 2016.
See appendix 1 for the approved embankment site plan

39

12. Wedding Palace section (east) with additional two floors and terrace

The project was plagued by considerable delaysin part due to the

change in scale and site; in part due to the material requirements of
Jorbenadzes design, which was not conducive to prefabricated components.60
Jorbenadze was also frustrated by repeated official attempts to justify the size of
the building by cluttering his ceremonial spaces with restaurants and shops.61
Ultimately, the politician and the architect both got their way: Shevardnadze had
his grand opening on Tbilisoba 1984 with a mass wedding and traditional dance
celebrations (even if the interior was not quite finished), while Jorbenadze had
the honor of designing a wedding palace of unprecedented scale and design
detail.
Project collaborator Vazha Orbeladze witnessed a heated exchange between Jorbenadze and
Shevardnadze, when Jorbenadze attributed construction delays to lack of lead sheeting to seal the roof.
After offering to put some lead between Jorbenadzes eyes, Shevardnadze managed to procure a sufficient
quantity leftover from the construction of a lead-lined fallout shelter beneath Tbilisis parliament building.
61
Bostanashvili, D. (2013), pp. 141.
60

40

13. Shevardnadze at the Palace grand opening, Tbilisoba 1984

Like its expressionist inspirations, the Palace of Rituals is abstract,

sculptural, and blatantly suggestive. Jorbenadze provides hints (and winks) for
the viewer, deriving the buildings form from the male and female elements that
were to be united within. What is, from the ground, a phallic bell tower rising
between two spiraling pavilions becomes, from above, a model of the female
reproductive systemJorbenadze lifted the plan from the medical diagrams
used by his mother, a prominent gynecologist. The Palaces asymmetry provides
another indirect reference to its ritual purpose: like a couple standing side by
side, the western (male) half of the faade is both taller and wider, while the
eastern (female) half is slightly shorter and more subdued.

41

14. Palace of Rituals floor plans

Despite inspiration derived from imported architectural styles, the

exterior is laden with subtle reference to Georgian architectural tradition.
Towering over the low-rise buildings that surround it, the Palace is of a scale and
prominence historically accorded to Georgian Orthodox cathedrals (imagery
that would not have escaped the architect, preoccupied with Georgias medieval
architectural ensembles throughout his career). Jorbenadze also succeeded in
cladding the exterior entirely in limestone panels from the central Georgian
town of Kutaisi, rather than the stucco used in his previous projects. The stone
produces a warmer effect with slight variations in color, as in a traditional
Georgian church. Last used widely for grandiose Stalinist civic architecture,
stone veneer had been denounced as a form of architectural excess in the
1960s and was replaced by the more efficient, proletarian precast concrete. To
revive the use of stone again in the 1980s, and for such a large building with

42

curving elements, suggests a certain confidence in the significance of the Palace

as a civic institutionand provides the viewer with a suggestion of the aesthetic
excesses that await inside.
The exterior of the Wedding Palace is a model of restraint compared to
the interior, a colorful medley of references to Georgian tradition executed by a
team of applied artists under Jorbenadzes direction: designer Vazha Orbeladze,
architect Erekle Mkervalishvili, engineer Givi Pitskhelauri, sculptor Gia Japaridze,
and painters Zurab Nijaradze and Nino Lordkipanidze. Inside, the allusions to
Georgian tradition are no longer hidden in abstract forms or choice of materials;
they appear in their entirety, creating a postmodern collage set in flowing
interior spaces. Visitors encounter an advance guard at the entrance: a statue of
Dionysus drawn from a West Georgian archaeological specimen occupies a tall
pedestal to the right of the steps. Frequently misidentified as Hermaphrodite,62
Dionysus was chosen for his associations with the purposes of the Wedding
Palace: ritual, celebration, fertility, and spectacle (also: viticulture, the ancient
tradition of which is central to Georgian cultureand weddings).

62

Perhaps in connection to Jorbenadzes unconfirmed sexuality.

43

15. Ceremonial hall

The open plan interior uses curving walls to lead the visitor to new spaces
rather than to distinct rooms. The plan is arranged around a central axis
connecting the entrance and the altar at the back, with spaces to the left and
right for male and female wedding guests to prepare for the ceremony. At the
center of the axis, a well opens to the floors below, looking down on the
banquet halls and registration offices, and establishing a visual and spatial
connection between levels. The well (since filled in) was crowned with a bronze
Tree of Life sculpture, designed by sculptor Gia Japaridze, based on images
from a medieval mosaic in Pitsunda, a town on the Black Sea coast now part of
the Abkhazian separatist region.63 Architectural historian David Bostanashvili
compared the arrangement of space to that of a town square, in which small

63

See appendix 3-6 for images of historical references in the palace interior.

44

peripheral streets converge on a central plaza.64 The visitor enters a soaring

interior space illuminated throughout with jewel-toned stained glass panels
designed by Vazha Orbeladze. Here, the use of stained glass draws not on
ecclesiastical architecture (Orthodox churches do not traditionally feature
stained glass), but on the multicultural architecture of Old Tbilisi.65 Another
element of secular Georgian architecture directly above: the darbazi, a
pyramidal vault (here rendered in gold-hued steel girders rather than the
traditional wood) with origins in the ancient architecture of the South Caucasus.
Moving towards the altar, the visitor passes below a mezzanine and
ascends a small staircase to a spacious chamber where the wedding party (and
perhaps musicians) would assemble. Although most of the walls were kept white
or lined in stone, two columns at either side are decorated with frescoes of the
Western zodiac and constellations, rendered in muted pastel colors by painter
Nino Lordkipanidze. The plan culminates at the altar, a space demarcated by
another low flight of steps, lowered ceiling, and a pair of columns. Couples were
intended to pass between the columns and into a more intimate space suffused
with color. Another mural by Zurab Nijaradze covers every surface with serene
blues and greens as it depicts a wedding scene (into which Jorbenadze has
Bostanashvili, D. (2014). Index 0144 - Palace of Rituals. Index. Tbilisi, ArtareaTV.
mashrabiya, a wood latticework panel lined with stained glass, was likely introduced to Tbilisi (then Tiflis)
under Qajar rule. Originally a residential feature, mashrabiya became a staple of the Orientalist eclectic
style employed at late 19th century civic institutions of Russian Imperial Tiflis.
64
65

45

cheekily inserted himself as a lion-headed patron offering a miniature Wedding

Palace, as ancient Georgian kings might be depicted offering miniature
churches). At the center of this vestibule is an unassuming table of white stone:
the registration desk, the Soviet Unions answer to the Orthodox altar.
An interview of the Palace director, Elza Svimonishvili, reveals the extent
of the institutions efforts to incorporate Georgian identity as a key aspect of
wedding ceremonies. Svimonishvili states that her staff worked with local
academic institutions to study old folk customs that could be revived with
renewed essence.66 Ceremonies could include a shvidkatsa67, or mens folk
choir, and Svimonishvili refers to the presentation of the epic poem
Vepkhvistqaosani (Knight in the Panthers Skin) as a wedding tradition since
time immemorial.68 Efforts to highlight Georgian culture were intended to make
ceremonies of all kinds more warm and comradely and less formalistic, like
the bureaucratic civil registration office procedures.69

Nebieridze, G. (1985). A Whole Lifetime Together. Partiuli Sitqva [The Party Word] (12), pp. 19.
Lit. seven-man, an arrangement that could accommodate Georgias famous traditional vocal
polyphony.
68
Claire Pogue Kaisers research would imply that this was actually a recently-developed ritual.
Traditionally, excerpts from the epic poem would have been recited at the wedding feast rather than
presented as a book.
69
Nebieridze, G. (1985), pp. 21.
66
67

46

16. View through the well up into the ceremonial hall

Although wedding ceremonies were the highlight of the projects

agenda, the Palace of Rituals was extensively programmed by party officials to
serve multiple leisure and social welfare functions. The spaces below the main
ceremonial hall included a discotheque, book and gift shops, various public
eating facilities, lecture halls, consultation offices, [and] halls for fashion
reflecting an emphasis on collective youth leisure typical of developed
socialism.70 Svimonishvili also mentions plans for extensive social services:
marriage counseling, matchmaking, child psychology for new parents, and even

70

Hait, V. (1987). Celebrations Palace in Tbilisi Arkhitektura SSSR [Architecture USSR] (4), pp. 41.

47

sexology in an effort to overcome entrenched superstitions.71 The palace staff

established (or planned to establish) close working relations with New
Traditions Inculcation Centre of the Georgian SSR Academy of Sciences, the
Applied Sociology Department of Tbilisi State University, the Psychological
Institute of the Georgian Academy of Sciences, the Republican Sexology Centre,
and the ministries of health and culture.72
Taken as a whole, the Palace of Rituals speaks to developed socialisms
interest in promoting quality of life through a constellation of methods: national
pride, cultured leisure, and social welfare services. The extensive programs on
offer indicate that Soviet wedding palaces evolved under developed socialism
to offer far more than just participation in secular ideology. Couples were also
increasingly encouraged to participate in national ideology, celebrating a dual
Georgian-Soviet identity.

71
72

Nebieridze, G. (1985), pp. 20.

Norakidze, N. (1984). Here Happiness is Celebrated. Komunisti [The Communist]. Tbilisi, pp. 296.

48

2.
The Palace as Dialogue:
Architecture Old and New in the Late Soviet Era
In the service of a secular political project, architect Victor Jorbenadze
filled the Palace of Rituals with quotations from Georgian architectural
vocabulary, ensuring a sense of cultural continuity for the ceremonies that would
take place within. The result is as Georgian as it is Soviet, both emerging from
and reacting to the international modernism of previous decades. The
comparative artistic freedom of developed socialism, coupled with its
encouragement of national culture, fostered what architectural historians are
beginning to identify as a late socialist postmodernism. Official Soviet
architectural discourse hesitated to embrace a trend seen as inherently
capitalist, unsettled by the ideological implications (and potential professional
consequences). Only in 1979 did the major party architecture journal address
the possibility of postmodernism in the Soviet context. By that time, architects
like Jorbenadze, particularly those on the periphery, had been experimenting
with postmodernism (in practice if not in name) for years.
Developed socialism had, in many ways, provided the conditions for a
distinctive Soviet postmodernism. Most notably, developed socialisms
emphasis upon culture as a state-provided public good meant local tradition
and geographical place and now had official and explicit roles to play in socialist
49

governance. Historic preservation, accordingly, acquired a fresh legitimacy

among urban planners and architects, expanding the acceptable range of
architectural expression.
This chapter will examine how the Palace of Rituals embodies a late
socialist postmodernism, and how the cultural logic of the period created
conditions for this architectural phenomenon to flourish. Critical reception of the
Palace of Rituals provides a revealing portal into the concerns of late Soviet
architects, who increasingly worked on both preservation and contemporary
projects. The Palace was primarily discussed as a matter of what preservationists
today might refer to as infill design, or the sensitive incorporation of new
architecture into historic environments. This growing sensitivity to historic
context indicates that preserving old buildings encouraged architects to
reconsider the design of new ones.

50

An Era-Defining Building
The Palace of Rituals and Soviet Preservation Discourse

The Palace of Rituals was the subject of much debate in Georgian and
Union-wide press for much of the 1980s. How the Palace was discussed was
often just as revealing as what was discussed. Articles appeared in art,
architecture, and literary journals, indicating that robust architectural criticism in
this period was not confined to the architectural community, but was broadly
intellectual.73 The Palace was frequently compared to other national cultural
products like literature and film, suggesting a shift in the public perception of
architecture and how it was evaluated. For much of the 1950s and 60s,
architecture had been treated as a branch of the planning and construction
industry, but by the late Soviet period, it was considered an art form capable of
expressing national identity as effectively as a film or a poem. By the 1980s, the
success of a building was also increasingly tied to its ability to be in dialogue
with the existing a built environment, a dramatic break from the ideology of
modern architecture, which was valued precisely for its departure from local
vernacular.

Major reviews of the Palace appeared in Union-wide journals Tvorchestvo (Creativity) and Arkhitektura
SSSR (Architecture USSR), and Georgian journals Sabchota Khelovneba (Soviet Art), Literaturuli Saqartvelo
(Literary Georgia), and Partiuli Sitqva (The Party Word).
73

51

Much of the discourse around the Palace reflected a new cultural current
among the Soviet elite: historic preservation. The rising value of historic
architecture embodied a reversal of Khrushchevs modernism, which favored
prefabrication, functionalism, and a commitment to avoiding the historicallyinflected excesses of Stalinist architecture. This ideology treated architectural
design as a science rather than as an art. Its primary function was, quite literally,
to modernize: to improve standards of living by replacing outdated buildings
with practical, rational new ones. Khrushchev himself was rumored to be
dismissive of historic preservation: on a visit to Trakai Castle in Lithuania, he was
overheard complaining of the waste of money lavished on restoring an old
building with no practical use.74
Art historian Boris Groys claims that before developed socialisms
abandonment of utopia and encouragement of national cultures, the Soviet
population had to be constantly on the move, constantly mobilized, inspired,
and oriented toward utopian ideals. It had no right to stop, to relax, to look
toward the past.75 After decades of marching towards the future, developed
socialism finally provided official permission to engage deeply with history,
including historic architecture. According to historian Catriona Kelly, it is
Meierovich, M. (2004). I Have a Dream. Yaroslavl: Aleksandr Rutman, pp. 177.
Groys, B. (2003). The Other Gaze: Russian Unofficial Arts View of the Soviet World Postmodernism and
the Postsocialist Condition: Politicized Art Under Late Socialism, ed. A. Erjavec. Berkeley: University of
California Press, pp. 58.
74
75

52

difficult to overstate just what a turning point the Brezhnev era represented with
regard tohistoric buildings in the aesthetic hierarchy of the Russian
intelligentsia.76 Although the past was still recruited to the Soviet cause, by the
late 1960s, it had become acceptable to study history for historys sake, without
explicit ideological motivation. The active revival of regional studies77 turned
central Soviet authorities into unlikely patrons of culture on the periphery,
commissioning regional intellectuals to produce multivolume national histories,
invented national genealogies, purified national languages, [and] preserved
national treasures.78
Georgia was at the forefront of the Soviet preservation movement, with a
cultural influence that punched far above its demographic and economic weight.
In 1959, Georgia was the first Soviet republic to form a voluntary national society
dedicated to the protection of monumentsseveral years ahead of the next
societies in Azerbaijan (1962) and Armenia (1964), marking the Caucasus as a
leader in Soviet preservation, with Georgia leading the Caucasus. Most of the
other republics, including Russia, didnt establish equivalent societies until

Kelly, C. (2013). From Counter-Revolutionary Monuments to National Heritage: the Preservation of

Leningrad Churches, 1964-1982. Cahiers du Monde Russe 1(54), pp. 133.
77
In Russian, kraevedenie, see Kelly pp. 134.
78
Slezkine, Y. (1994). The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic
Particularism. Slavic Review 53(2), pp. 451.
76

53

1966.79 The preservation of Old Tbilisi (initiated by Shevardnadzes inaugural

Tbilisoba in 1979) was covered extensively in Arkhitektura SSSR, the main party
architecture journal, more than any other individual city in the Union.80 This
preservation impulse not only protected historic buildings, but influenced the
design of new ones.

17. Illustration from one of many articles on the restoration of Old Tbilisi published in
Arkhitektura SSSR.

The growing attention to historic buildings fostered concern regarding

the impact of new buildings on their historic surroundings. Georgian architects

Polevogo, V., ed. (1986). The Popular Art Encyclopedia. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia.
<http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_pictures/2287/>
80
Arkhitektura SSSR ran articles on historic Tbilisi restoration projects in December 1976, February 1980,
June 1981, July-August 1982, April 1983, September-October 1984, November-December 1984, MarchApril 1985, May-June 1985, January-February 1986, July-August 1986, November-December 1986, MayJune 1987, May-June 1989, and March-April 1990.
79

54

of the period were often commissioned to work on preservation projects and

new designs simultaneouslyVazha Orbeladze, for example, was engaged at
the municipal workshop for the restoration of Old Tbilisi for the duration of the
Palace of Rituals project.81 Architectural design and discourse of the period
reflect the growing acceptance of tradition as something to be celebrated rather
than discarded.
This paradigm shift is evident in the critical reception of the Palace of
Rituals, which reveal sensitivity to historic context as a key factor in evaluating
the success of a new buildinga consideration that would have been unheard
of under Khrushchev. Initial reviews of the Palace were mixed, and it was hotly
debated in the local press throughout its construction.82 Critique centered
around three themes: how the palace responded to its historic context, how it
articulated Georgian traditions, and how it reflected a new era in Soviet
architecture.
Architect Shota Bostanashvili was the first to defend the Palace in a major
local journal, Sabchota Kheloveneba (Soviet Art) in 1985. Like Jorbenadze,
Bostanashvilis work explored the possibilities of historically-inflected

81
82

Orbeladze, Vazha. Interview by Angela Wheeler and Vladimer Shioshvili. Tbilisi, 12 January 2016.
Orbeladze, Vazha. Interview by Angela Wheeler and Vladimer Shioshvili. Tbilisi, 12 January 2016.

55

architecture in the late Soviet period.83 Bostanashvili emphasizes that the Palace,
as a temple of modern social function has the responsibility to shape both
social and architectural traditions, unlike a mere registration office, which can
only provide social services.84 The Palaces architecture, in a way, becomes its
own kind of social service: continuing the traditions of Georgian architecture in
an innovative way.
In 1987, two articles in a local literary journal continue the debate with a
question that would not be unfamiliar to preservationists today: is the Palace an
heir to Georgian architectural heritage, or does it go too far, and constitute an
intrusion on the surrounding historic environment? In his article On One Public
Building, Lado Vardosanidze dismisses Bostanashvilis arguments as pathos
and reminds readers of the architectural truth that major public buildings
should be held to a certain set of criteria. Rather than immortal truths, however,
these criteria reflect recent developments in Soviet architectural discourse:
placement, place in the citys planning structure, conformity to surrounding
relief, linkage with the environment, role in the overall silhouette of
development, ability to organize space, and scale.85 Although these critics
differed in their assessment of the Wedding Palace, they shared an unspoken
Jorbenadze would review Bostanashvilis National Bread Factory in the May-June 1990 issue of
Arkhitektura SSSR.
84
Bostanashvili, S. (1985). Palace of Rituals of Tbilisi. Sabchota Khelovneba [Soviet Art] (8).
85
Vardosanidze, L. (1987). On One Public Building. Literaturuli Sakartvelo [Literary Georgia].
83

56

new assumption: buildings should be assessed, in part, by the extent to which

they were sensitive to their historic context. Such considerations, unheard of in
Soviet architectural criticism only a decade earlier, underscore the dramatic shift
at work in both architectural practice and public perception of architectures
role.
Vardosanidze goes on to use preservation-based arguments against the
Palace of Rituals, recognizing the 1980s as a new stage of cultural heritage
protection when the value of historical cities has at last become axiomatic. He
emphasizes that the Palace is located not just any place for Tbilisi, but a
unique historic environment whose silhouette makes Tbilisians hearts beat in a
different way whose image stays unforgettably with all foreign guests. The
Palace, he argues, rubs against that silhouette. His primary complaint is the
gigantomania of the building, which he believes departs from Old Tbilisis
human scalea Jane Jacobean argument one might expect to hear from a
Western preservationist or New Urbanist rather than a Soviet architectural critic.
Vardosanidze concedes that new buildings are necessary to breathe life into a
city, and condemns the mindset that would leave Tbilisi a monument to its own
past, where only tourists seeking the exotic feel comfortable. He ultimately
concludes, however, that the Palace does not participate rigorously in the

57

dialectical struggle between old and new that must accompany the
development of architecture.
The next issue of Literaturuli Saqartvelo featured a response by architect
Vakhtang Davitaia, who defends the Palace of Rituals and dismisses
Vardosanidzes claims that a permanently defined Tbilisi scale can even be
said to exist. He exhorts Vardosanidze (and the reader) to look at the Palace as
part of a broader culturological phenomenon rather than as merely a
building.86 Davitaia situates Jorbenadzes work within a kind of late Soviet
Georgian cultural canon that also includes recent works of national literature and
film,87 bringing architecture back into the realm of national expression. The
Palace of Rituals, he contends, is about more than just trying to accommodate
heritage; it is about creating a new heritage for Georgia and for humanity.88
Davitaia accuses Vardosanidze of taking too literal a stance on design, stating
that the building achieves continuity with Georgian tradition through deep
layers of memories and associations rather than through imitation of historical
scale and composition.

Davitaia, V. (1987). On One Public Building: Response. Literaturuli Sakartvelo [Literary Georgia] (9).
He cites work by filmmaker Tengiz Abuladze and authors Otar Chiladze, Nodar Dumbadze, and Chabua
Amirejibi, among others.
88
By way of qualifying his expertise about world heritage, Davitaia mentions his recent attendance at a
UNESCO symposium in Prague dedicated to issues of art integration in historic cities, and his visits to
France and Japan.
86
87

58

A detailed review of the building in Arkhitektura SSSR by Vladimir Hait

also lavishes praise on Jorbenadzes ability to incorporate innovative work within
historic contexts, citing his early projects as one of the first attempts in Soviet
architecture to tactically inscribe a new building onto the existing urban
environment.89 Hait views the Palace as part of a new class of highly individual
buildings that reinterpret regional traditions and inspire such broad and active
public interest in the regeneration of the historical development of the centre.
Hait clarifies that these new buildings do not meekly blend in with or imitate the
stylistic characteristics of historic architecture, but reinvent them.
Whether critics liked the Palace of Rituals or not, all agreed that it
embodied an emerging movement in architecture. Even Lado Vardosanidze
conceded that the Palace was an era-defining building in Georgian
architecturecuriously, he did not view the Palace as an acceptable heir to
Georgian tradition, but his description suggests he imagines its primary identity
as Georgian, not Soviet or even contemporary.90 Although Hait emphasizes
the originality of the Palaces design, he also recognizes it as characteristic and
symptomatic of the current stage of development of Soviet architecture as a
whole.91 In a coda to Haits article, a Georgian architect Davitashvili

89
90
91

Hait, V. (1987). Celebrations Palace in Tbilisi Arkhitektura SSSR [Architecture USSR] (4), pp. 42.
Vardosanidze, L. (1987).
Hait, V. (1987), pp. 44.

59

acknowledged that at times this Soviet architecture resembled its Western

counterparts, but emphasized it emerged from a different tradition, different
taste, different ideals, a different spirit and a different culture.92 Soviet critics
clearly recognized that the architecture of the period converged formally with
the trend of postmodernism in the West, but also understood that in the Soviet
world, the style had arisen from different dynamics and served different
purposes.

92

Davitashvili, G. (1987). Celebrations Palace in Tbilisi. Arkhitektura SSSR [Architecture USSR] (4), pp. 45.

60

3.
The Palace as Legacy:
Breaking Down Binaries in Post-Soviet Preservation

Historic preservation in Georgia is widely perceived to be in a state of

crisis, with proposed UNESCO sites languishing on the Tentative List and
existing UNESCO sites added to the World Heritage Sites in Danger.93 This state
of affairs emerges from three trends at work in post-Soviet Georgia that
coalesced under the Saakashvili administration that came to power in 2003. All
three trends represent efforts to disown the Soviet past and create an urban
space that conforms to Georgias newly-constructed national image. The first of
these efforts are restoration projects that often reduce historic neighborhoods
to pastiche showpieces. The second is the commissioning of massive public
buildings designed by foreign architects with scant regard for surrounding
historic architecture. The third effort is the erasure of Soviet-era architecture,
which conforms to neither the idealized pre-Soviet past nor the glamorized postSoviet future. And so although Georgia continues to face the same challenges
architects debated in the 1980s (how to innovate while respecting tradition, how
to preserve without lapsing into to pastiche) the country is now doing so without
the benefit of the conversation Soviet architects started three decades ago. The
Tbilisi Historic District. UNESCO World Heritage Convention Bureau of the World Heritage Committee.
Proc. of 25th Extraordinary Session: Evaluations of Cultural Properties (7-8 December 2001) Finland,
Helsinki. 86-90.
93

61

collapse of the Soviet Union cut short that debate, and architectural discourse
has yet to recover.
The late Soviet architecture that embodies this productive conversation
about tradition and innovation faces its own preservation challenges. Preserving
architecture of the recent past is difficult even when the recent past is
uncomplicatedat best, it is fraught with issues of public taste and personal
bias. In post-Soviet Georgia, which is staking its current and future identity on
breaking with the Soviet past, deep cultural ambivalence is also an obstacle to
preservation. Institutions like the Palace of Rituals, designed to serve certain
political aims, face redundancy when the regime that produced them
disappears. The chapter will survey the afterlife of late Soviet architecture in
Georgia and prospects for its preservation.

62

Old Life for New Tbilisi

National Narratives and Historic Preservation in Post-Soviet Georgia
Georgia declared independence from the Soviet Union in April 1991,
heaving into a period of political and economic turmoil that effectively froze the
local architectural profession for a decade. The 1990s saw the emergence of a
wild market as state property was haphazardly privatized, and a laissez faire
planning ethos derived in part from political instability and in part from zealous
embrace of the free market.94 At the same time, Georgia struggled to establish a
new national identity that broke with the Soviet past, a project that had dramatic
implications for both new and historic architecture.
After the wild experiments of late Soviet postmodernism, Georgia in the
1990s sought safer, more traditional architecture that recalled the pre-Soviet
past. Post-Soviet Georgia provided an early hint of its disinterest in innovation
with the 1990 national cathedral competition.95 The resurgent Georgian
Orthodox Church sought to create a new religious center in the capital city to
symbolize its revival following decades of Soviet suppression. Historically,
Svetitskhoveli Cathedral in the neighboring city of Mtskheta functioned as the

Ziegler, K. (2009). The Evolution of Spatial Planning in Georgia from Socialism to Market Economy. K.
Van Assche, et al (eds.), City Culture and City Planning in Tbilisi: Where East and West Meet. Lewiston:
Mellen Press, pp. 141142.
95
A competition initially announced before independence in May 1989 to commemorate 1500 years of
Georgian Orthodox autocephaly.
94

63

seat of Patriarchate and center of Georgian Orthodoxy. Jorbenadze had studied

Mtskheta extensively from the 1950s, even publishing an academic article on the
role of its church ensemble in the landscape.96Jorbenadze and Shota
Kavlashvili97 submitted a proposal entitled Resurrection Unity, a clear
reference to the Georgian state as much as to the Church. The competition
entry describes Jorbenadzes consideration of the existing situation in the
country, the great importance of consolidation of the Georgian nation, in the
spirit of Georgians striving for restoration of the integrity of their country98 and
his efforts to create continuity with Church tradition. The floor plan was based
on his studies of Georgian tetraconch99 churches, and would center on a
reliquary from Svetitskhoveli, symbolizing the new cathedrals connection to its
historical predecessor. The site, located not far from the Palace of Rituals, would
enable a dialogue between the two buildings. Jorbenadzes magnum opus, a
cathedral that would synthesize decades of research on Georgian ecclesiastical
architecture with modern materials and idioms, symbolized a newly-resurrected
Church ready to face the future.

Jorbenadze, V. (1958). Architectural Scale of the Ensemble of Mtskheta, the First Capital of Georgia.
Sabchota Khelovneba [Soviet Art] (9).
97
Lead preservationist for the 1980s restoration of Old Tbilisi and architect of the 1988 Archaeology
Museum
98
Bostanashvili, D. (2013), pp. 111.
99
From the Greek four shells; a Byzantine four-apsed church almost entirely endemic to the Caucasus
and Syria
96

64

18. ResurrectionUnity proposal for Sameba Holy Trinity Cathedral in Tbilisi by V.

Jorbenadze and Sh. Kavlashvili (1990)

The Church had other ideas. Despite over one hundred applications
submitted in the first round of competition, the Church announced no winner.
Nodar Mgaloblishvili, chair of the Union of Architects of Georgia, sent a glowing
letter of support for the proposal to Georgian Patriarch Illia II, imploring His
Holiness and Beatitude to consider the development of the modern Georgian
church by reviewing and using Georgian historical principles and new
architectural means.100 But innovative combinations of old and new were no
longer as appealing as simple revival of the old. Delayed by economic and

100

Bostanashvili, D. (2013). Butza: Victor Djorbenadze Architect. Tbilisi: Cezanne Printing House, pp. 114.

65

political turmoil in the 1990s, the Church finally selected a proposal from Archil
Mindiashvili, who created a composite of traditional Georgian Orthodox
elements, topped it in gold, and blew it up to skyscraper proportions. Ironically,
Jorbenadze was able to get a cathedral approved by Soviet authoritiesbut
not by the Georgian Orthodox Church, which sought a more conservative
design. He died in 1999, suffering from dementia and emphysema.

19. Sameba Holy Trinity Cathedral (completed 2004); architect Archil Mindiashvili

In 2003, the Rose Revolution brought the young, pro-West United

National Movement to power, led by Mikheil Saakashvili, who promised
transparency and a clean break from the chaos of the 1990s. The Saakashvili
administration recognized the power of architecture to convey ideological
narratives: in this case, the story of Georgia as an outpost of democracy
emerging from the shadow of Russian influence, ripe for international investment
66

and Western integration. To bolster the appearance of a Georgian economic

miracle both at home and abroad, the Saakashvili government undertook a
nationwide beautification campaign that rested upon glamorous new
architecture (often designed by foreign architects), and the restoration of historic
neighborhoods. Caught between a romanticized pre-Soviet past and an exciting
globalized future, Soviet architecture occupied an uncomfortable (and politically
undesirable) middle ground. The decaying material world inherited from the
Soviet Union was seen as an embarrassing hindrance to a fledgling democracy
courting foreign capital.
Under the aegis of modernization, Soviet architecture was regularly
beautified out of the urban landscapea fate not uncommon to architecture
of the recent past dismissed as outdated but not yet recognized as historic. This
phenomenon is perhaps most clearly articulated by two buildings in central
Telavi, a provincial capital in eastern Georgia. At one corner of Telavis central
plaza lies the Telavi State Drama Theatre, completed in 1967 by the prolific
Georgian architect Giorgi Jabua. On the plazas adjacent corner stands a fivestory residential complex added in 1969, originally sporting tiered balconies in a
modernist idiom. In 2012, both structures were reclad, but inflected with
differing historical implications. The theatre faade was updated with white
metal pipes and panels, while the apartment building was artificially aged with
67

faux historic wooden balconies and a stone veneer foundation. Although the
resulting structures were now wrapped in styles separated by more than a
century, both buildings had fallen victim to the same campaign.

20. Telavi central square drama theater and apartment complex (left) and after 2012
beautification (right)

The arbitrary nature of the methods used to beautify Soviet architecture

suggests that the flaw Georgian officials saw in the victims of their architectural
makeover was not merely age. Not only were the existing buildings of rather
recent vintage, but they were frequently made to appear oldernot younger
than their actual age. Rather, the buildings sin was their birth under the Soviet
Union. They were functionally useful but politically obsolete. Such restoration
68

plays well in a country where the Soviet Union has been recast as an occupying
regime in a new national narrative. These restorations, however, ignore the fact
that Soviet architecture in Georgia is just as Georgian as romanticized Old Tbilisi
balconies: designed by local architects and, by the 1970s, often designed to
reflect Georgian traditions.
Saakashvilis beautification mandate created a muddled preservation
agenda in Old Tbilisi, encompassing the historic neighborhoods surrounding the
Palace of Rituals. Eager to create an historic core resembling those found in
western European capitals, Tbilisi City Hall embarked on a campaign that could
best be described as retrofitting the past to serve the needs of a desired future.
The UNESCO-designated historic districts of major European cities have several
attributes that appealed to a Westward-looking political administration:
cleanliness, prestige, revenue-generation, and architectural embodiment of
national identity. Municipal leaders determined to remake Old Tbilisi in this
image, failing to take into account the long-term social, political, and financial
organization that created the appropriate conditions for West European historic
districts to flourish.101
The resulting New Life for Old Tbilisi plan, implemented in 2009,
revealed the shortcomings of a municipal government in thrall to pastiche
Gerkeuli, N. (2010). National Urban Policy in Georgia. Big Cities, Capitals and City-Regions in Central
and Eastern Europe. Soos G. and Temmes M. (eds.) NISPAcee Press, 51-64.
101

69

European Olde-Towne branding and content to leave responsibility for historic

neighborhoods entirely in the hands of the private sector.102 The only committee
to oversee New Life work, a parity council, was composed mainly of the
developers and municipal officials rather than planners or heritage professionals,
and so little attention was paid to selecting appropriate preservation
approaches for each site. At many of the New Life sites, historic buildings
were not usually preserved, but demolished and reconstructed (often with an
extra floor or two), creating a Potemkin village effect.

21. Old Tbilisi Revival near Betlemi Quarter

Archuadze, Z. (2012). New Life of Old Tbilisi. In International Conference: Community and Historic
Environment, Tbilisi, 20-22 September 2011, 21-23. Tbilisi: ICOMOS Georgia.
<http://icomos.org.ge/pdf/conference_proceedings.pdf>
102

70

Rather than producing an appealing environment for tourists and

potential business tenants, the lack of informal social space results in a
landscape too sterile and incoherent to attract pedestrians. Candy colors and
clean lines, it seems, are a poor substitute for even the long-neglected public
spaces of unrestored historic neighborhoods. As anthropologist Paul Manning
has observed, emphasis on faades alone leads to pastiche architecture, in
which traditional idioms are folklorized and theatricalized, detached from their
original social meanings and reduced to symbols of the Old Tbilisi branda
brand that was exported across Georgia and applied as a one-size-fits-all image
for other historic cities across the country.103 It could be said, then, that the
New Life scheme replaced Old Tbilisi with Old Tbilisi Revival, a twenty-first
century pastiche that reimagines nineteenth century urbanity, with only the most
superficial concessions to traditional forms.

Manning, P. (2009) The City of Balconies: Elite Politics and the Changing Semiotics of the Post-Socialist
Cityscape. City Culture and City Planning in Tbilisi: Where Europe and Asia Meet. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen,
pp 17-55.
103

71

22. Variations on a theme (clockwise from top left) Mtskheta, Telavi, Tbilisi, Sighnaghi

Another challenge to historic preservation in Georgia comes from new

architecture, commissioned by both private and public sources. The Saakashvili
administration was particularly enthusiastic about investment in flagship projects
that constitute what Georgian planner Joseph Salukvadze refers to as
neoliberal urban entrepreneurialism in which showpiece public buildings
designed by international architects function as a quick fix in achieving a
modernized and globalized image for the capital and, by implication, in linking
the whole nation to the European civilization.104 Dozens of these projects,
including the Bridge of Peace (2010, designed by Michele de Lucchi), the Public
Salukvadze, J. and O. Golubchikov (2016). City as a Geopolitics: Tbilisi, Georgiaa Globalizing
Metropolis in a Turbulent Region. Cities (52), pp. 49.
104

72

Service Hall, and Rike Park Theater (2012 and 2016, both by Massimiliano
Fuksas) were sited in historic neighborhoods, with little consideration for their
impact on what Vardosanidze called the scale, ratio and silhouette of Tbilisi,
which developed over the centuries.105 International architecture firms, with no
knowledge of Tbilisi or of Georgias historic architecture, were invited to litter
projects across the country.
It is easy to blame foreign architects for vanity projects heedless of local
context, but much of the problem is also domestic. Ironically, there is less
professional architectural discourse in Georgia under the free market than under
socialism. The market has not (and likely can not) provided a replacement for the
centralized structure and funding that supported architectural publications,
education, accreditation, and symposia across a massive population. The loss of
the Soviet Union also meant the loss of a broader architectural community.
Although far more open to global influences, an architect in Georgia today lacks
the structure with which to engage in collective professional debate about
developments in Russia, Tajikistan, and Estonia. The fall of the Iron Curtain has,
in some ways, made the Georgian architectural profession more insular.
Architecture associations are currently voluntary and serve no regulatory

105

Vardosanidze, L. (1987). On One Public Building. Literaturuli Sakartvelo [Literary Georgia].

73

purpose. The Association of Architects of Georgia publishes Style Magazine,106

but the content is dominated by advertising and sponsored articles rather than
the in-depth discussion of contemporary developments like those found in
Soviet-era journals. A local architect refers to local organizations as absolutely
impotentin terms of significance or influence in the professional field.107
Georgias current penchant for the extremes of pastiche historic
architecture and decontextualized new architecture suggest an inability to
explore the methods pioneered by late Soviet architects. While the Soviet
period was primarily additive in terms of architecture (creating entirely new
districts from scratch on the outskirts of the city, like Saburtalo), the free market
is proving transformative, inserting development into preexisting
neighborhoods. These new buildings may be bold and new, but they rarely face
the challenge of engaging historic architecture in innovative ways.

106
107

<http://style-magazine.archias.ge/?l=E&m=1>
Zhvania, Irakli. Interview by Angela Wheeler. 9 May 2016.

74

Afterlives of Late Soviet Architecture

There is currently no unanimity on the treatment of late Soviet
architecture in Georgia. Although the overall landscape is grim, there are some
outstanding exceptions, and a rising interest among younger generations and
international visitors in Soviet architecture.
The 1975 Ministry of Roads by Giorgi Chakhava is an example of
promising developments for the protection of late Soviet architecture. An early
example of late socialist postmodernism, the building was lauded across the
Soviet Union and internationally: it combined El Lissitskys horizontal skyscrapers
with Japanese metabolic architecture and drew inspiration from the way
Georgian mountain villages set into hillsides. The Ministry was abandoned and
defaced for much of the 1990s and 2000s, until it was acquired by the Bank of
Georgia in 2007 (when it was also declared an Immovable Monument under the
National Monuments Act). The Bank of Georgia completed a full renovation and
conversion to their national headquarters in 2011; imagery of the building now
features prominently in bank advertising.
Jorbenadzes 1975 Mukhatgverdi cemetery buildings are now in an
advanced state of ruin even though the cemetery is still in regular use. The
buildings no longer have utilities and are used primarily as storage sheds
partially open to the elements and full of trash or maintenance equipment. All
75

suffer extensive water damage. The funeral services company that leases the site
recently covered the former stone-carving workshop in stucco for improved
insulation. The relative isolation of the site on the outskirts of Tbilisi mean it is
relatively unknown and unlikely to be restored or designated. Jorbenadzes
Chavchavadze Museum, however, remains much as it was in 1979, and functions
as a tourist attraction for the area.
Shota Kavlashvilis 1988 Archaeology Museum was only partially
completed, with the remaining extensions left derelict. The building constituted
a financial burden for the Georgian National Museum, so it is currently in private
hands and used to store archaeological materials from various projects (even
though the main building is reaching an advanced state of deterioration and
cannot provide stable storage conditions). Other minor projects face similar
fates: a 1988 dental clinic built on historic Leselidze Street as part of its
reconstruction in the 1980s (by architects N. Kvateladze and G. Takaishvili) was
demolished in 2014. The 1990 National Bread Bakery located near Tbilisi
reservoir (by architects Davitaia and Sh. Bostanashvili) is currently derelict, and
(like Mukhatgverdi) is likely too obscure and isolated to spark a preservation
campaign.
The Palace of Rituals continued to operate in the wake of Georgian
independenceit even hosted a vow renewal ceremony for Deep Purple
76

frontman Ian Gillian during a 1990 tour,108 and dated photographs from the
National Parliamentary Library of Georgia indicate that the Palace was in use as
late as 1998. Badri Patarkatsishvili, a Tbilisi-born tycoon who amassed a
multibillion-dollar fortune during the privatization of the Soviet economy,
purchased the defunct Palace from municipal authorities for an undisclosed sum
in 2002. We may never know what initially attracted the oligarch to the towering
phallic structure, but his treatment of the Palace is indicative of the cultural
ambivalence late Soviet architecture prompts in post-Soviet Georgians.
Patarkatsishvili left the exterior largely unchanged, but converting what
was once a public institution into a private residence required considerable
interior modifications. Patarkatsishvili initially contacted Jorbenadzes original
collaborators, Vazha Orbeladze and Givi Pitskhelauri, to lead the adaptive reuse
process. He also hired painter Zurab Nijaradze to restore the damaged altar
mural.109 The lower floors (formerly offices and banquet halls) were converted to
residential space, while the main ceremonial hall was to be left intact for social
functions. Against the protests of Orbeladze, Patarkatsishvili required that the
central well connecting all four floors be sealed and Japaridzes Spring of
Life sculpture removed, as they presented obstacles to his plan for a concert
Deep Purple lead singers Georgian wedding: Ian Gillan in Chokha and Phaeton. Georgian Journal, 20
March 2013 <http://www.georgianjournal.ge/entertainment/22685-deep-purple-lead-singers-georgianwedding-ian-gillan-in-chokha-and-phaeton.html>
109
Nijaradze, Z. (2016). Interview by Angela Wheeler and Vladimer Shioshvili. Tbilisi, 15 January 2016.
108

77

hall. Orbeladze suggested at least relocating the sculpture, and drew up plans
to incorporate it into the garden, but Patarkatsishvili was not interested.
Offended, Orbeladze quit the project, leaving Patarkatsishvili to hire local
architect Gia Kinkladze (who was not part of the Palaces original design team)
for the conversion.110 Kinkladze made several modifications to the ceremonial
halls interior: replacing the white stone floor with multicolored tile, installing
doors to entryways originally left open, and exchanging original metal hardware
for ornate woodwork. Although the overall impression is largely preserved, the
clean, interconnected spaces Jorbenadze carefully planned are somewhat
cluttered by the new additions.
Badri Patarkatsishvili died suddenly in 2008, leaving his estate frozen as
various claimants battled for his six billion dollar fortune.111 In 2013, the Palace
was leased to an events management company, which reopened it as a
celebration multifunctional complex for the guests with refined taste and the
followers of high standards.112 Although the grounds remain closed to the
general public, the Palace of Rituals once again hosts weddingsin addition to
birthdays, corporate functions, fundraisers, and the Black Sea Neurosurgical
Congress. Given the resurgence of Georgian Orthodox Christianity after
Gersamia, T. (2014). Vazha Orbeladze: Architecture, Design, Painting, Graphics. Tbilisi: Magticom, pp.
15-16.
111
Parfitt, Tom. Obituary: Badri Patarkatsishvili. The Guardian, 14 February 2008.
112
<http://www.ritualebissasakhle.ge/page/about>
110

78

independence, however, most Georgian couples prefer a traditional church

wedding, rendering Soviet wedding palaces redundant.113
But the most interesting of Patarkatsishvilis modifications is hidden from
view: a mock Old Tbilisi courtyard occupying one of the lower residential floors
and intended to evoke Patarkatsishvilis childhood home. Candy-colored
wooden balconies festooned with carpets overlook a courtyard (illuminated from
above by a steel-framed glass pyramid reaching for I.M. Pei) complete with a
stone fountain, street lamps, and a Morris column plastered with vintage
advertisements. In the end, even the Palace of Rituals could not escape Old
Tbilisi pastiche.

23. Old Tbilisi revival meets late Soviet postmodernism

According to national survey by the Caucasus Research Resource Centers, 82% of Georgians selfidentified as Orthodox Christians in 2015 <http://caucasusbarometer.org/en/cb2015ge/RELGION/>
113

79

Conclusion
Preserving late Soviet architecture possesses a value beyond preserving
individual buildings, because architecture of this era embodies an under-utilized
strategy of preservation itself. Soviet architects in the 1970s and, with greater
intensity, the 1980s, began exploring how new structures themselves might
contribute to the existing architectural heritage while still producing innovative
designs. The collapse of the Soviet Union disrupted that process. The
subsequent chaos and restructuring of the architectural profession around the
private market shut the door on this approach to historic environments. But by
preserving the legacy of late Soviet architecture, we might be able to resume
that discussion, to the benefit of both old and new architecture in Georgia.

80

Image Sources
1. Collection of Irakli Kovzanadze
2. Author screenshots taken from Dziga Vertovs Man With a Movie
Camera
3. Life Magazine, Time Inc. Photographer Carl Mydans
4. Donetsk 1973 postcard courtesy delcampe.net; Moscow 1961 drawing
courtesy Cleveland Press Reference Department
5. National Parliamentary Library of Georgia
6. delcampe.net
7. Collection of Irakli Kovzanadze
8. Collection of Irakli Kovzanadze
9. Photographs of Notre Dame du Haut courtesy Wikimedia Commons;
photographs of Mukhatgverdi by Vladimer Shioshvili
10. Vladimer Shioshvili
11. Wikimedia Commons
12. Collection of Irakli Kovzanadze
13. Collection of Irakli Kovzanadze
14. Collection of Irakli Kovzanadze
15. Igor Palmin
16. Collection of Irakli Kovzanadze
17. Arkhitektura SSSR November-December 1986 courtesy Avery
Architectural and Fine Arts Library at Columbia University
18. Collection of Irakli Kovzanadze
19. Collection of Irakli Kovzanadze
20. Docomomo Georgia
21. Tbilisi City Hall
22. Tripadvisor
23. Vladimer Shioshvili

81

Bibliography
Anderson, J. (1994). Religion, State, and Politics in the Soviet Union and
Successor States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, R. (2014). A Dialectic of Negation: Modernism and Postmodernism
in the USSR. Paper presented at the European Architectural History Network
biennial conference in Turin, Italy on 19-21 June 2014.
___. (2015). Russia: Modern Architectures in History. London: Reaktion Books.
Arevshatyan, R. (2010). Blank Zones in Collective Memory or the
Transformation of Yerevan's Urban Space in the 60s. Red Thread 1(2): 1524.
Armaghani, B. (2011). Georgian Building Codes Assessment. USAID Economic
Property Initiative.
Associated Press. (1965). Soviet Weddings Getting Elegant. The Mason City
Globe-Gazette, 14 April 1965: 10.
Azatyan, V. (2012). Disintegrating Progress: Bolshevism, National Modernism,
and the Emergence of Contemporary Art Practices in Armenia. ArtMargins 1(1):
6287.
Bagrationi, G. (1998). Vakhtang Davitaia: Architect. Tbilisi: Bakur Sulakauri
Publishing House.
Batiashvili, G. (1990). Reconstruction of Old Tbilisi. Arkhitektura SSSR
[Architecture USSR] (1): 1223. In Russian.
Baravikas, G. and V. Yurkshtas. (1982). The Complex Problem of Tradition and
Innovation. Arkhitektura SSSR [Architecture USSR] (5): 2223. In Russian.
Blauvelt, T. and J. Smith (2016). Introduction. Georgia After Stalin:
Nationalism and Soviet Power. eds. T. Blauvelt and J. Smith. New York:
Routledge, 112.
Bostanashvili, D. (2013). Butza: Victor Djorbenadze Architect. Tbilisi: Cezanne
Printing House.
82

___. (2014). Index 0144 - Palace of Rituals. Index. Tbilisi: ArtareaTV.

<http://artarea.tv/category/102/indekhsi>
Bostanashvili, S. (1985). Palace of Rituals of Tbilisi. Sabchota Khelovneba
[Soviet Art] (8). In Georgian.
Boulle, E.-L. (1797). Essay on the Art of Architecture. trans. in Boulle and
Visionary Architecture. H. Rosenau. London: Academy Editions.
Brezhnev, L. (1977). A Historic Stage on the Road to Communism. World
Marxist Review 22(12): 37.
Chaubin, F. (2012). CCCP: Cosmic Communist Constructions Photographed.
Hln: Taschen.
Cooke, C., ed. (1988). Nostalgia of Culture: Contemporary Soviet Visionary
Architecture. London: Architectural Association.
Covell, R. (1965). A taste for old palaces and art. The Sydney Morning Herald.
4 December 1965: 16.
Davitaia, V. (1987). "On One Public Building: Response." Literaturuli Sakartvelo
[Literary Georgia] (9). In Georgian.
Davitashvili, G. (1987). Celebrations Palace in Tbilisi. Arkhitektura SSSR
[Architecture USSR] (4): 45. In Russian.
Dobrovolsky, A. (1977). Celebrations Palaces Events. Arkhitektura SSSR
[Architecture USSR] (8): 5456. In Russian.
Eagleton, T. (1990). The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Epstein, M. (1995). After the Future: The Paradoxes of Postmodernism and
Contemporary Russian Culture. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
___. (1999). Russian Postmodernism: New Perspectives on Late Soviet and PostSoviet Literature. Brooklyn: Berghahn Books.

83

Erjavec, A. (2003). Introduction. Postmodernism and the Postsocialist

Condition: Politicized Art Under Late Socialism. ed. A. Erjavec. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 154.
___. (2008). Postmodernism, Postsocialism, and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Evans, A. (1977). Developed Socialism in Soviet Ideology. Soviet Studies
29(3): 409428.
Gersamia, T. (2014). Vazha Orbeladze: Architecture, Design, Painting, Graphics.
Tbilisi, Magticom.
Grant, B. (1995). In the Soviet House of Culture: A Century of Perestroikas.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gribov, I. (1960). Marriage Palaces in Moscow, Marriage and Family Living
22(3): 274.
Groys, B. (1992). The Total Art of Stalinism: Avant-Garde, Aesthetic Dictatorship,
and Beyond, trans. C. Rougle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
___. (2003). The Other Gaze: Russian Unofficial Arts View of the Soviet World
Postmodernism and the Postsocialist Condition: Politicized Art Under Late
Socialism, ed. A. Erjavec. Berkeley: University of California Press, 5589.
Hait, V. (1987). Celebrations Palace in Tbilisi Arkhitektura SSSR [Architecture
USSR] (4): 4045. In Russian.
Hanson, S. (2006). The Brezhnev Era. The Cambridge History of Russia ed. R.
G. Suny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (3): 292315.
Hatherley, O. (2015). Landscapes of Communism. London: Allen Lane.
___. (2015). Saakashvili didnt need interesting architects to design the new
Georgia. Dezeen Magazine, 19 November 2015.
Hodnett, G., ed. (1974). Resolutions and Decisions of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
84

Hudson, H. (1994). Blueprints and Blood: the Stalinization of Soviet Architecture,

1917-1937. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hughes, L. (1989). The USSR: Construction Under Reconstruction. The Times
Literary Supplement. London: The Times.
Ikonnikov, A. (1988). Architecture of the Soviet Period. Moscow: Raduga. In
Russian.
Janberidze, N. (1971). Georgian Soviet Architecture: Way of Development.
Tbilisi, Khelovneba [Art]. In Georgian.
Jorbenadze, V. (1958). Architectural Scale of the Ensemble of Mtskheta, the
First Capital of Georgia. Sabchota Khelovneba [Soviet Art] (9). In Georgian.
___. (1998). Video interview by N. Janelidze in Tbilisi, Georgia.
Kaiser, C. P. (2015). Lived Nationality: Policy and Practice in Soviet Georgia,
1945-1978. History. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania. PhD.
Kelley, D. (1986). The Politics of Developed Socialism. New York: Greenwood
Press.
Kelly, C. (2013). From Counter-Revolutionary Monuments to National
Heritage: the Preservation of Leningrad Churches, 1964-1982. Cahiers du
Monde Russe 1(54):131164.
Khrushchev, N. (1993). Remove Shortcomings in Design, Improve the Work of
Architects (28 December, 1954) trans in Architecture Culture 1943-1968. J.
Ockman. New York: Rizzoli, 184188.
Kobakhidze, K. (2016). Interview by Angela Wheeler and Vladimer Shioshvili.
Tbilisi, 13 January 2016.
Komaromi, A. (2007). The Unofficial Field of Late Soviet Culture. Slavic Review
66(4): 605629.

85

Kudryavtsev, A. (1985). Reconstruction and Regeneration of Old Tbilisi.

Arkhitektura SSSR [Architecture USSR] (3): 4853. In Russian.
Kurg, A. (2013). The Turning Point in 1978: Architects of the Tallinn School and
Their Late Socialist Public. Architecture and the Paradox of Dissidence ed. I.
Weizman. New York: Routledge, 1932.
Kvirkvelia, T. (1981). Reconstruction and Adaptation of Georgian Architectural
Monuments. Arkhitektura SSSR [Architecture USSR] (6): 5661. In Russian.
___. (1982). Architecture of Tbilisi. Tbilisi: Sabchota Sakartvelo [Soviet Georgia].
In Georgian.
Kvirkvelia, T. and N. Mgalobishvili (1986). Architecture of the Soviet Georgia.
Moscow, Stroiyzdat. In Russian.
Lane, C. (1981). The Rites of Rulers: Ritual in Industrial Society the Soviet Case.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leddington, R. (1973). How the other half weds: Soviets simplify ceremony, tie
knot in 10 minutes. The Ottawa Journal, 5 April 1973.
Martin, T. (2001). The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the
Soviet Union, 1923-1939. New York, Cornell University Press.
Meades, J. (2012). Joe Building: The Stalin Memorial Lecture. Museum
Without Walls. London: Unbound.
Metreveli, G. and V. Jorbenadze. (1990). A National Bread Bakery in Tbilisi.
Arkhitektura SSSR [Architecture USSR] (3). In Russian.
Mgaloblishvili, N. (1981). Urban Planning Challenges in Georgia. Arkhitektura
SSSR [Architecture USSR] (4): 2025. In Russian.
___. (1982). Street Reconstruction in the Old Quarter of Tbilisi. Arkhitektura
SSSR [Architecture USSR] (4): 110113. In Russian.
___. (1990). New Architecture Biennale. Arkhitektura SSSR [Architecture USSR]
(1): 2431. In Russian.
86

Milanovic, B. (2014). For Whom the Wall Fell? A balance-sheet of transition to

capitalism. Globalinequality <http://glineq.blogspot.com/2014/11/for-whomwall-fell-balance-sheet-of.html>
Nebieridze, G. (1985). A Whole Lifetime Together. Partiuli Sitqva [The Party
Word] (12): 1921. In Georgian.
Nijaradze, Z. (2016). Interview by Angela Wheeler and Vladimer Shioshvili.
Tbilisi, 15 January 2016.
Norakidze, N. (1984). Here Happiness is Celebrated. Komunisti [The
Communist]. Tbilisi, 296. In Georgian.
Orbeladze, V. (2016). Interview by Angela Wheeler and Vladimer Shioshvili.
Tbilisi, 12 January 2016.
Oushakine, S. (2007). Were Nostalgic But Were Not Crazy: Retrofitting the
Past in Russia. The Russian Review 66(3): 451482.
Paperny, V. (2011). Architecture in the Age of Stalin: Culture Two. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Platt, K. and B. Nathans. (2011) Socialist in Form, Indeterminate in Content:
The Ins and Outs of Late Soviet Culture. Ab Imperio. 301324.
Preobrazhenskiy, V. and Y. Vedenin (1984). Development of Recreation
Geography in the USSR. Geography of Tourism and Leisure 9(1): 7782.
Rappaport, A. G. (1988). Fantasy Versus Utopia. Nostalgia of Culture:
Contemporary Soviet Visionary Architecture. ed. C. Cooke. London:
Architectural Association: 9.
Riabushin, A. and V. Kait (1979). Postmodern Architecture: Pluses and
Minuses, Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR [Soviet Decorative Art] (10): 3440. In
Russian.
Reid, S. (1997). Destalinization and Taste, 1953-1963. Journal of Design
History 10(2): 177201.
87

Ricoeur, P. (1965). Universal Civilization and National Cultures. History and

Truth. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 271284.
Ronneberger, K. and G. Schllhammer (2010). Monumental and Minimal
Space: Soviet Modernism in Architecture and Urban Planning. An Introduction.
Red Thread 1(2): 2530.
Ruudi, I. (2015). Unbuilt: Visions for a New Society, 1986-1994. Talinn: Museum
of Estonian Architecture.
Salukvadze, J. and O. Golubchikov (2016). City as a Geopolitics: Tbilisi,
Georgiaa Globalizing Metropolis in a Turbulent Region. Cities (52) 3954.
Sandle, M. (2002). Brezhnev and Developed Socialism: The Ideology of
Zastoi? Brezhnev Reconsidered, ed. E. Bacon. New York, Palgrave Macmillan:
165187.
Schllhammer, G. and R. Arevshatyan (2013). Trespassing Modernities. SALT
Galata, Istanbul.
Slezkine, Y. (1994). The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist
State Promoted Ethnic Particularism. Slavic Review 53(2): 414452.
Suny, R. G. (1994). The Making of the Georgian Nation. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Teepen, T. (1986). Devotion to the state only religion practiced. The Palm
Beach Post, 31 August 1986.
Trymbach, S. (2012). Artistic Power vs. State Power: Dovzhenko, Savchenko,
Parajanov. Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema 6(3): 357364.
Tsereteli, K. (2005). Victor Jorbenadze: Carnival. Parajanov: Collage in the
Form of a Self-Portrait. Nizhny Novgorod: Dekom, 8689. In Russian.
Tsitsishvili, I. (1980). Rebirth of an Opera and Ballet Theater in Tbilisi.
Arkhitektura SSSR [Soviet Architecture], (2): 5660. In Russian.

88

Tumanishvili, D. ed. (2008). Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage Protection.

Tbilisi: Nekeri.
<http://www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws/media/pdf/georgia/geo_lawculturalheri
tage_engtof.pdf>
Tumarkin, M. (1988) Genesis of Postmodern Architecture in the USSR.
Arkhitektura i stroitelstvo Moskvy [Moscow Architecture and Construction], (11):
20. In Russian.
United Press International. (1961). Reds Wedding Palace Will Vie With
Churches1st Groom Didnt Believe. The Lincoln Star, 23 February 1961.
Uvarova, M. and A. Riabushin (1980). Postmodernism As A Term and As A
Phenomenon. Arkhitektura SSSR [Soviet Architecture], (1): 5455. In Russian.
Vais, D. (2010). Secondary Agency: Learning from Boris Groys. Agency:
Working with Uncertain Architectures eds. Florian Kossak et. al. New York:
Routledge, 4760.
Vardosanidze, L. (1987). On One Public Building. Literaturuli Sakartvelo
[Literary Georgia]. In Georgian.
Wolfe, R. (2016 [forthcoming]). The Graveyard of Utopia: Soviet Urbanism and
the Fate of the International Avant-Garde. Zero Books.
Yurchak, A. (2005). Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More: The Last
Soviet Generation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Zizek, S. (1990). Eastern Europes Republics of Gilead, New Left Review (183):
50-62.

89

Appendix

1. Palace of Rituals site plan. Image courtesy The National Archives of Georgia.
90

2. Palace of Rituals floor plan. Image courtesy The National Archives of Georgia.

3. The darbazi ceiling, a feature of Georgian vernacular architecture dating back to the early
Bronze Age Kura-Araxes culture.

91

4. 4th century mosaic from Pitsunda, Abkhazia inspired Japaridzes Tree of Life sculpture. The
mosaics were discovered in the 1950s and excavated through the 1970s.

5. A fresco by Zurab Nijaradze depicts Jorbenadze as a lion-headed figure offering a model of

the Wedding Palace in a style that refers to Georgian iconography, most likely David the Builder.
The connection is literal (David the Builder, Jorbenadze the architect) and symbolic (David the
Builder is viewed as having ushered in Georgias cultural golden age in the 11th century).

92

6. Sketches by Vazha Orbeladze show potential interior variations for the altar

93