SILVIJA GROSA JŪGENDSTILA PERIODA PLASTISKAIS UN ...

Human figures (Vaļņu Street 2, architect Edgar Friesendorff, 1911) and
representations of fauna (Tērbatas Street 13, Jānis Gailis, 1912; Brīvības Street 37,
Laube, 1909) were also subject to stylisation. After 1907, there was increased
interest in the motifs and subject matter that were typical of Neo-Classicism, and
the décor of new buildings more frequently presented images of fauna which
created traditional, presentable or heraldic associations – bears (Brīvības Street 88,
Jānis Alksnis, 1910; Daugavgrīvas Street 74/76, Alksnis, 1907), eagles (Blaumaņa
Street 5, Alksnis, 1911), and lions (Ģertrūdes Street 60, Rudolph Dohnberg).
Freely designed natural motifs in the plastic décor of façades were often replaced
with small and compact vases with flowers (Čaka Street 49, Ernests Pole, 1912).
In other cases there were motifs that were close to a style that could be described as
“proto Art Deco” (Eksporta Street 3, N. Nords, 1913). This showed links to the
architectural décor that was typical in Berlin at that period of time. Putti became a
very popular motif (Baznīcas Street 45, Konstantīns Pēkšēns, 1909; Bruņinieku
Street 28, Eižens Laube, 1910; Čaka Street 44, Edmund von Trompowsky, 1911;
Brīvības Street 88, Jānis Alksnis, 1910; Elizabetes Street 41/43, Alksnis, 1913).
These trends help to explain the freely designed stylisations of historical ornaments
– cartouches, palmettes and rocaille motifs, often intermingled, sometimes with
biomorphic ornaments that were typical of Art Nouveau itself. In the search for
new ornamental subjects, it was also possible to engage in free stylization of the
capitals of the classic orders (Brīvības Street 37, Laube, 1909). Sometimes
jewellery and textiles were stylized as motifs for plastic décor (Lāčplēša Street 60,
Dohnberg).
Décor included festoons, lambrequins, caduceuses, horns of plenty,
bouquets of ribbons and meanders, sometimes in combination with the
aforementioned putti or with vases. Although these motifs were often subject to
non-classical solutions, the use of what were essentially conventional motifs
confirmed a certain trend in décor, which eventually meant a return to allegorical
and literary compositions. The departure from the typologically identified and
most popular motifs of Art Nouveau iconography was manifested in depictions of
the hunt (Stabu Street and Stabu Street 93, architect Bielenstein in both cases,
1909; Smilšu Street 1/3, Nikolai Proskurnyin, 1906), of didactic and patriarchal
subject matter (Tallinas Street 77, Jānis Gailis, 1911; Miera Street 45, Rudolph
Dohnberg, 1908), as well as of the symbols of National Romanticism (Maskavas
Street 68, Oskars Bārs, 1911). It was also possible in décor to focus on various
aspects of economic life – industry, agriculture, etc. There were allegorical
presentations of the arts, sometimes from antiquity. We can find topics related to
17 th or 18 th century Classicism, and to the Italian Renaissance (see the chapter in
the dissertation on the relationship between Art Nouveau and Neo-Classicism).
These clearly presented ideas related to Neo-Romanticism (Čaka Street 18, Jānis
Alksnis, 1907), or an interest in music (Lenču Street 2, Bārs, 1911). This
demonstrated the overlapping nature of typical stylistic manifestations during this
94