Тифлис-Москва: особенности взаимодействия «центра» и «периферии» на примере грузинской архитектуры 1920-х–1930-х гг.
Developing national motifs in the Soviet architecture of the 1920s and 1930s, it was important to ensure the peaceful coexistence of numerous national cultures with the emerging all-Union socialist culture. The architecture was supposed to demonstrate, among other things, a deliberate respect for the national cultures of non-Russian peoples. However, the architectural heritage of various national cultures within the USSR turned out to be so different from each other in its artistic, stylistic and ideological motives that any unification in the spirit of "peaceful coexistence" of the existing architectural traditions became impossible. In Georgia, the need to invent architectural traditions has become increasingly felt since the mid-1920s, provoking the emergence of new architectural concepts developed by Moscow authors.
In the republics of Transcaucasia, united into one Transcaucasian Federation, until the early 1930s, similar architectural processes were observed, expressed in an appeal to that layer of pre-revolutionary practice, which was most convincingly interpreted as "traditional". Traditional architecture becomes a symbol of the national prestige of the people. In Georgia (as in Armenia), the sources of such forms were primarily the monuments of medieval temple architecture. However, what the local architects embodied often differed, and sometimes radically contradicted what the architects and theorists from Moscow manifested. The results of the increased administrative control of Moscow began to be embodied in the architecture of Georgia since the late 1920s, provoking disagreements and disputes with the local architectural community.