In the 1970s and 1980s, the façade of the Auvere power plant was decorated with a giant metal panel representing either a star or a sparkle. The project team has not yet been able to identify the author. The work was assembled from several pieces and mounted on the façade using two identical metal frames (each approximately 3 x 4 m). With Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine beginning in 2022, the Soviet legacy came under increased scrutiny in Estonia. The metal sparkle was removed from the façade of the Auvere power plant because it allegedly resembled the Soviet red star. Fortunately, the metal ornament was carefully dismantled and stored on the territory of the power station, where it still stands today, awaiting reinterpretation.
It is not a monument in the strict sense of the word, but is categorised under the genre of monumental-decorative art, which was widespread during the Soviet period. The concept of monumental-decorative art became widespread in art during the so-called Thaw – more precisely, after the Second Congress of the Union of Soviet Architects in 1955, when Nikita Khrushchev condemned the excesses of Stalinist-era neoclassical architecture and paved the way for the monumental-decorative art. In the process of mechanising the construction of micro-neighbourhoods, Soviet urban planners and architects developed a methodology for synthesising the arts in new neighbourhoods: standard-design apartment buildings created a backdrop against which more unique public buildings stood out. The synthesis of the arts, in the form of monumental-decorative art, embodied these landmark buildings. The synthesis of the arts of the late Soviet period valued equally mural painting, ceramics, textiles, stained glass and metalwork. During the Soviet period, hundreds of monumental-decorative artworks were created in Estonia. Many of these have survived and some are still famous and popular today (such as Enn Põldroos’s curtain in the City Hall or his mosaic pot in the Radio House), but in recent years dozens have been destroyed.
Gregor Taul writes in his doctoral thesis on monumental-decorative art:
“The term monumental-decorative art originated from the interwar period. However, it became a keyword of art speech during the Thaw – more precisely after the Second Congress of the Union of Soviet Architects in 1955 when Nikita Khrushchev deplored the lavish decoration of socialist
realist architecture and paved the way for the construction of prefabricated apartment blocks. In the course of the mechanised process of erecting the microdistricts, Soviet urban planners and architects developed a methodology for synthesising the arts into its new districts: similar template-design buildings created a background against which unique architectural chefs-d’oeuvre – public and community buildings – would stand out. These landmark structures would feature the synthesis of the arts which appeared in the format of monumental-decorative art. The concept of the synthesis
of the arts itself is much older – depending on the researchers’ preferences, its origins have been associated with Gothic and ancient architecture, or even much earlier historical eras. All in all, one of the underlying ideas of the synthesis of the arts is the belief that architecture alone cannot provide a
meaningful spatial design. Hence, architects have sought unity through the interplay of various art forms. Likewise, late Soviet synthesis placed equal value on mural painting, ceramics, textiles, stained-glass and metalwork.
To some extent, monumental-decorative art embodied state power as it represented ideological hierarchy and stated who had the right to ‘semiotise’ the reality. On the other hand, artists involved in producing monumental-decorative art could also distance themselves from the state power and
instead focus on the aesthetic and architectural details. Plenty of these artists were directly connected to the slightly critical art scene, with some conveying critical messages about Soviet rule. However, in most cases, the official commissioners themselves managed to rid public art of direct ideological imperatives and turned the broad opportunities to the artists’ advantage. Therefore, the division between the official policies of the synthesis and the subjective and transgressive aspects of Soviet material
culture was far from straightforward.”
Gregor Taul, Monumentality Trouble. Monumental-Decorative Art in Late Soviet Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Dissertationes Academiae Artium Estoniae 43, pp. 12-15.