SILVIJA GROSA JŪGENDSTILA PERIODA PLASTISKAIS UN ...

has an allegorical sculpture on its façade (the building was erected for an insurance
company and housed offices, shops and flats; it was designed by Nikolai
Proskurnin (Николай Проскурнин) in 1906, and the sculpture was designed by
Ferdinand Vlassák), and the building at Hospitāļu Street 5, which has a sculptural
group, “Blacksmiths”, which was perhaps produced by August Volz. The latter
building was designed by Konstantīns Pēkšēns in 1910, and the sculptural group is
linked to a company which engaged in that particular profession in the building.
Another notable sculptural group is called “The Archangel Michael Battling a
Dragon,” and it is located at Baznīcas Street 31 (architect Paul Riebensahm, 1908).
It is close to the Old Church of St Gertrude, but the presentation of a religious
theme was quite uncommon in the decorative sculptures which were produced in
Rīga during the relevant period in time.
Reliefs became more important in plastic décor. They could present
figural motifs, but they could also be abstract and stylised motifs which, in
comparison to the early period of Art Nouveau, had fewer plastic accents. Reliefs
on façades were often positioned in the form of individual panels, with a rhythmic
repetition of one and the same motif. In other cases they were placed freely on the
surface of the façade, making use of the possibilities created by plastering. There
were various ornamental solutions that were used – different tones and reliefs, as
well as so-called scratched ornaments as a version of sgraffito. An example is seen
on the façade of the residential and commercial building at Cēsu Street 43, where
water lilies are at the top of the façade (architect Edmund von Trompovsky, 1910).
In other cases, a linear drawing was supplemented with lightly plastic modelling
(for instance, the anthromorphic décor on the façade of the residential building at
Vīlandes Street 4, architect Konstantīns Pēkšēns, 1908).
Often used in décor were geometrised motifs, including ethnographic
ornaments which could confirm the effects of vernacular traditions of art (Čaka
Street 70, architect Aleksandrs Vanags, 1910). Such ornaments also pointed to
links with heraldry such as a shield (the motif of a chessboard on the building at
Ģertrūdes Street 54, August Witte, 1909). There were also figural ornaments
(Dagdas Street 3, architect I. Etins, 1913). In comparison to the early period of Art
Nouveau, there was greater interest in innovations, but one gets the sense that there
were insufficient criteria in the selection of those innovations, and that meant that,
as mentioned, there was a fairly broad range of styles, including motifs from Neo-
Classicism and a return to Neo-Rococo or the style of “proto Art Déco.” It must be
repeated, therefore, that specifying the boundaries of purely Art Nouveau décor is
very difficult, and this requires a detailed look at each individual example of how
décor was used.
It can be said that a certain breaking point between early and late Art
Nouveau décor in Rīga occurred in 1905, when the building at Skolas Street 3 was
designed for the long-serving chairman of the Rīga Association of Architects,
August Reinberg. As one of the best examples of its type of buildings, it was
discussed in the first issue of the “Yearbook on the Pictorial Arts in the Eastern
92