SILVIJA GROSA JŪGENDSTILA PERIODA PLASTISKAIS UN ...

ornamentation that was so typical of Art Nouveau was increasingly prevalent in
relation to the arrangement of architectonic mass. The architectonic outline of
buildings was softened in some cases, although in others it was subject to distinctly
geometric corners (Lāčplēša Street 51, architect Eižens Laube, 1919; Brīvības
Street 160, architect Jānis Alksnis, 1909). This is clearly seen in building
silhouettes (Lāčplēša 70a and 70b, Laube as architect in both cases, 1909). Third,
natural materials were used more actively on façades, and in terms of decorative
effects, aesthetics often led to an emphasis on contrasts in texture and the
roughness of finishing materials. In other cases, there was a focus on valuable and
high-quality materials such as polished granite or marble. This was the case at a
building at Tērbatas Street 14, which housed a bank, some shops, and flats, too. (It
was designed by Konstantīns Pēkšēns and Arthur Moedlinger in 1909). Sometimes
the materials that were used in the décor of the late Art Nouveau period opened up
opportunities for delicate polychromy. Glazed tiles were often used to produce
polychrome (or, sometimes, tonal) accents. These were arranged in a rhythmic
faction along a façade or grouped into larger areas. One example of this is the
building at Blaumaņa Street 12a, which was designed by Friedrich Scheffel in
1908 for a pottery artist called Fricis Auseklis. Also created during this period was
the widely known mosaic and fresco which Janis Rozentāls produced for the
façade of the building of the Rīga Latvian Society in 1910, but the use of mosaics
on façades was much more of an exception than a rule. One example is the façade
of the building at Lāčplēša Street 100, which was designed by the architect Nikolai
Jakovlev (Николай Яковлев) around 1910.
Innovations in architecture in Rīga did not emerge in isolation. As had
been the case in earlier periods, they reflected processes which were occurring all
over Europe. Even as links to architecture in Germany and Austria were
preserved, there was more active interest around 1905 in the experiments which
were ongoing in Finnish architecture. This amplitude of focus created a foundation
for a broad range of interpretations, and that makes it complicated to define
stylistic borders in the architecture of the late Art Nouveau period in Rīga. We
must assume, however, that the balance of functional and aesthetic elements in
buildings, in the composition and planning of façades, and in the combination of
motifs of décor which was used – all of this preserved the basic principles of the
Art Nouveau form, and from this perspective, Art Nouveau during this period can
be said to have matured in Rīga. On the other hand, new styles were also emerging
– National Romanticism, Domestic Revival and Neo-Classicism. These styles
intermingled with Art Nouveau, and architectural décor often went beyond the
boundaries of pure Art Nouveau, both in stylistic and in iconographic terms.
During the late period of Art Nouveau, the role of plastically accented and
applicative building plastic declined, and the use of decorative and anthromorphic
round sculptures became rare, too. Among a few examples are the residential
building at Valdemāra Street 20 (architect Hermann Hartmann, 1907), one at
Matīsa Street 42/44 (Jānis Alksnis, 1907), the building at Smilšu Street 1/3, which
91