SILVIJA GROSA JŪGENDSTILA PERIODA PLASTISKAIS UN ...

stylised depictions of natural forms in a Neo-Gothic way, as well as certain Neo-
Rococo motifs related to presentation of the sun and of hybrid creatures such as
dragons. A typical example is the building at Vīlandes Street 11, which was
designed by Rudolf Zirkwitz in 1899 for Dāvids Bikars, a master carpenter who,
for many years, was chairman of the Rīga Latvian Association of Craftsmen. The
façades of a building owned by Arveds Bergs at Krišjāņa Barona Street 7/9, one
owned by the engineer Ivan (Jānis?) Reiters at Tērbatas Street 33/35 (in both cases
designed by the architect Konstantīns Pēkšēns in 1900), and one owned by Paulīne
Birka at Tērbatas Street 7 (Pēkšēns, 1898) were decorated on the basis of typical
principles of Historicism. Plastic décor was used to create different visual
appearances. The formal solution used in the décor of these buildings involved
tiny elements, as well as distinct naturalism in the interpretation of certain motifs.
Soon this was seen as a set of out-of-date signs, and designers tried to overcome
this problem. Various degrees of naturalism, however, proved to be sustainable.
They survived in décor after the early and golden age of Art Nouveau, appearing
from time to time in the décor of the late Art Nouveau period.
IV.4. The décor of buildings designed by German architects
Several buildings in Rīga were designed in 1900 by German architects
such as Albert Giesecke in Berlin, W. Hahn in Lübeck, and T. Eyrich in
Nuremberg. They worked with local Baltic German architects– Heinrich Scheel,
Friedrich Scheffel, Wilhelm Neumann and Karl Felsko. This demonstrated the
authority of German architects, as well as the close links which they maintained
amongst themselves. This clearly could promote an exchange of artistic
impressions when décor for buildings was selected. These were structures which
showed active interaction between tradition and innovation. A typical example is
one of the most well-appointed buildings of the day – a building for flats and shops
at Brīvības Street 55. Known as Büngnerhof, the building was designed by
Giesecke, built under the supervision of Neumann, and decorated by the August
Volz workshop. The choice of plastic elements in the décor indicates distinct
retrospection. Although the range of themes in the decorative motifs on the façade
of the building does not go beyond ornaments shown in the Meier handbook (with
individual elements in the style of Neo-Renaissance and Classicism), it is evident
that the designers wanted to strike a balance between the décor and the size of the
façade, as well as to contrast decorated areas with blank ones. The rough texture
of the plastic décor can be attributed to the desire not to use tiny decorative
elements while preserving the naturalistic nature of anthropomorphic motifs in the
design. In the context of the era, the décor of the building was described as being
innovative, particularly in Baltic German publications. This judgment apparently
applies specifically to the formal solution used in the plastic décor, as well as to the
free interpretation of Neo-Renaissance motifs in the style of Otto Rieth.
79