16 still lifes and four types: how the design of the Stone Flower fountain evolved

The Stone Flower fountain at VDNKh is surrounded by 16 bronze still lifes, but there are only four types of composition. Originally, each group was to depict the agricultural bounty of one of the 16 Soviet republics. The individual designs were later abandoned, and four variants were repeated around the perimeter of the basin. The journal of Moscow’s Department of Cultural Heritage records this change but does not explain the reason for it.

The focus here is on the bronze groups on granite plinths around the pool. The central flower, smalt mosaics, sturgeon and geese form other parts of the same ensemble. The historical question concerns precisely how distinct representations of the republics gave way to a repeating series.

What exactly did the number 16 signify?

In the design of the still lifes, the number 16 corresponded to the number of constituent republics of the USSR when the fountain was created. An editorial note to a study published in the journal ‘Moscow Heritage’ in 2017 states that each republic was to have its own selection of the agricultural produce for which it was renowned. Each still life was conceived as a depiction of a particular territory’s economy through tangible objects.

The history of the Stone Flower fountain is tied to the revamped All-Union Agricultural Exhibition: it was built for the exhibition in 1954. The choice of motif reflected the exhibition’s purpose: the bounty of the land referred directly to its agricultural displays. Yet the source provides neither a complete list of the produce originally envisaged nor illustrations of sixteen separate designs. Attributing a particular bronze group to a specific republic solely on the basis of the produce depicted would be unreliable.

The still lifes at the Stone Flower had a precursor. Alexander Mazikov describes a design for the Sheaf fountain, in which sixteen figures of young women and sixteen bronze groups depicting the republics’ agricultural bounty were planned around the central composition. The granite bases were to bear the names of the territories. The surviving description confirms that the groups were intended as distinct representations, but does not prove that the inscriptions were carried over to the completed Stone Flower fountain.

Mazikov links the subsequent development of the Sheaf project to the new layout of the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition: by 1952, an elongated octagonal square had taken shape, where a second fountain appeared. He suggests that the original concept was then divided between what would become the Friendship of Peoples and Stone Flower fountains. The journal presents this as a hypothesis, rather than a quotation from a decision by the designers. It helps explain the proximity of figures representing the republics and bronze depictions of their bounty across the two fountains, but does not explain the later reduction in the variety of bronze still lifes.

The number 16 recurs in other details too. The authors of an article about the fountain note 16 cast-iron shells on the central ledge, with 16 mosaic flowers above them. This repetition links the different levels of the composition, although the elements serve different purposes: the shells create a rhythm around the flower bud, while the bronze groups were initially intended as individual representations of the republics.

Why did this number feature at the exhibition in particular?

The Stone Flower emerged from the post-war redevelopment of the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition. The original exhibition opened in 1939, and after its wartime closure, the leadership decided to reopen it. Writing in the journal Moscow Heritage, researcher Alexander Mazikov dates this decision to 1948 and describes the new exhibition as an almost entirely redesigned complex that welcomed visitors in 1954. This matters when interpreting the still lifes: they formed part of a unified ensemble created for a new programme of agricultural displays, rather than being later embellishments to an old basin.

Other water features existed on the site before the redevelopment. Mazikov points out that some fountains from 1939–1948 survive only in photographs. It is therefore incorrect to date the Stone Flower composition to the exhibition’s first opening in 1939. The bronze still lifes visible today belong to the post-war ensemble of 1954. This distinction helps keep the designs of the exhibition’s two phases separate, even when both appear in the history of the same place.

Sixteen Soviet republics reflected the reality of 1954: in 1956, the Karelo-Finnish SSR was reorganised as the Karelian ASSR, reducing their number to fifteen. In the same study, Mazikov notes that the figures on the neighbouring Friendship of Peoples fountain were not removed following this change. The number retained in the two fountains should be read as a historical feature of the time when they were created, rather than as an accurate political map for any later year.

How did the original concept change?

The number of positions for the still lifes remained the same, but the approach to filling them changed. The editorial note in Moscow Heritage explicitly states that sixteen individual compositions were abandoned: the final version was limited to four types, which were reproduced. This is the key to the apparent discrepancy between the number of bronze groups and the number of distinct designs.

The word ‘type’ should be read literally. It denotes a variant of the composition, rather than an installation position. Sixteen still lifes stood around the basin, but there were only four distinct compositional designs. Arithmetic alone does not prove that they were repeated evenly: establishing this would require a layout plan or an examination of all the groups. The publication gives the general principle but does not assign the compositions to individual republics.

The key to the drawing printed alongside the journal’s text lists ‘Bronze still life. Type 1’, ‘Type 2’, ‘Type 3’ and ‘Type 4’ separately. This is a rare instance in which a document allows us to verify both the number given in a general account and the terminology used in the design analysis. The plan distinguishes four models; the editorial note explains their relationship to the abandoned idea of sixteen separate representations.

Which sources show the four variants?

The plan in Moscow Heritage shows the fountain’s elongated shape, with a central composition and a long pool. The key distinguishes the pedestal supporting a still life from the four named types of bronze group. Thus, ‘type’ refers to the sculpture occupying a position, while the pedestal defines its architectural setting. This is a useful distinction: counting sixteen plinths on the plan does not yield sixteen types.

The nature of the document also matters. The printed plan illustrates the fountain’s arrangement in an article about its restoration; the editorial note separately recounts the change to the original concept. The reader is given two distinct pieces of evidence: a graphic identification of the four completed variants and a written account of the earlier design. Neither constitutes minutes of the discussion at which the decision to abandon sixteen individual depictions was made.

The key provides no list of produce for each type. Nor does it assign the names of republics to the types. A careful analysis can therefore confidently identify four models, but should not turn ‘Type 1’, for example, into a representation of a particular territory. Such an attribution would require labelled sketches by the designer, an archival specification or other direct evidence, rather than an association based on the appearance of a single plant.

Do we know why sixteen distinct depictions were abandoned?

The exact reason is not given in the materials consulted. Moscow Heritage sets out the sequence — a separate still life was initially planned for each republic, then only four types were retained and reproduced — but does not identify who made the decision, when the change occurred or the document that justified it. VDNKh’s official pages describe the completed fountain and its restoration without revealing the reasons for that design revision.

The documented outcome is nevertheless telling. The idea of each still life serving as a symbol of its own republic was abandoned, but the numerical scheme itself was retained. Visitors see sixteen ‘tables’ laden with nature’s bounty; their present decoration cannot be read as individual portraits.

How does the imagery’s meaning change?

In the original version, each still life was to have its own selection of objects. Such a series could have conveyed a succession of distinct messages: each of the sixteen positions would have had its own connection to the republics’ agricultural produce. The completed series works differently. Repeating four models preserves the image of abundance, but does not in itself allow the sixteen separate schemes originally envisaged to be reconstructed. This is a conclusion drawn from comparing the original and completed versions recorded in the journal, rather than a statement about any particular designer’s intentions.

VDNKh’s official description calls the bronze groups still lifes depicting the natural bounty of the Soviet republics. This wording accurately conveys the fountain’s overall theme, but could be misread as referring to sixteen distinct ‘portraits’ of republics. The note in Moscow Heritage clarifies the limit: four decorative variants are not enough to identify a separate republic from each group. This is precisely why the two official accounts should be read together, rather than choosing just one.

The distinction between the number of positions and the number of designs is familiar from architectural ornament: a repeated element can occupy many positions. At the Stone Flower, however, repetition extends beyond a background pattern. Each bronze still life is a sculptural group in its own right, set on a plinth and available to view at close quarters. The reduction in variety therefore changed how the entire perimeter could be read: instead of a potential sequence of produce representing the republics, viewers encounter a few recurring designs.

How do the four types work within the fountain’s composition?

The bronze still lifes stand on granite plinths around the perimeter of the large basin. The official VDNKh description calls them compositions depicting the natural bounty of the Soviet republics. Their materials and placement help distinguish this series from the central flower: bronze and granite surround the multicoloured bud clad in smalt mosaic. Viewed across the pool, the repeated still lifes establish a rhythm around the outside, while the bright centre draws the eye.

The journal Moscow Heritage also describes how the decorative elements relate to the water. Beneath the still lifes, on the side facing the basin, were fountains in the form of bronze geese; spotlights illuminating the water jets were housed in niches in the still lifes’ bases. The compositions thus formed a sculptural frame, while the plinths played a part in the night-time lighting system. This detail explains why the still lifes cannot be regarded as freestanding sculptures placed casually beside the water.

It is difficult to distinguish all the variants at once from the central viewing area: the flower and the pattern of water jets are the most prominent features. To check the repetition, it is more useful to examine the bronze groups one by one along the edge of the pool and compare their forms. The early Sheaf design envisaged inscribing the names of the republics on the still lifes’ granite bases; the publication provides no evidence of such inscriptions on the completed fountain.

Which materials distinguish the centre from its surrounding frame?

The Stone Flower was conceived as a multi-tiered composition. Mazikov gives the bud’s height as eight metres; its surface and the surrounding stylised crystal clusters are clad in coloured smalt mosaic. The description lists jasper, malachite, lapis lazuli and rhodonite as the models for the decorative stones. Here, a distinction should be drawn between the mineral depicted and the cladding material: the sparkling facets are made of mosaic, while the gemstone names refer to the visual effect.

The tiers beneath the flower have different finishes. The upper tier features stylised crystal clusters, while the two lower tiers are faced with rough-hewn granite; the rim of the lowest is decorated with a scale pattern in yellow cantarel glass on a silver backing. The edge of the large basin is clad in polished red slabs. The rough-hewn granite of the lower tiers, the polished rim and the mosaic of the bud help distinguish the fountain’s different parts even in an overall view: the bronze groups stand on granite plinths around the perimeter, with the mosaic flower rising above them.

VDNKh’s restoration materials explain that the original finish included coloured marblite — opaque glass — and cantarel glass with gold leaf sandwiched between glass plates. The smalt was not a continuous coat of paint on concrete: the mosaic layer was assembled from many individual pieces. This matters when viewing the flower after restoration. Its vivid appearance comes from work with fragments and samples of the historic mosaic, rather than an arbitrary new colour, although some of the material was newly made.

A VDNKh announcement dated 24 April 2019 specifically emphasises the individual patterns and colour schemes of the flower’s central leaves. This detail does not contradict the repetition of the still lifes: it concerns different parts of the structure and different decorative techniques. The central form allows for variations between mosaic surfaces, while four models of bronze groups are repeated at sixteen positions along the basin’s rim.

Around the perimeter, the visual rhythm is different: the still lifes stand out through their silhouettes and their repetition along the granite edge. The cast-iron volutes on the plinths, mentioned in VDNKh’s description, give each group an architectural frame. This combination reveals a transition from the concrete imagery of the harvest to the fountain’s decorative structure: the same sequence can be read both as a collection of sculptures and as a rhythm along the water.

How do the still lifes differ from the other figures?

The large basin contains cast-iron sturgeon and bronze geese. Shells and mosaic flowers adorn the central tier. In a quick count, these details can easily be mistaken for parts of the same series of bronze groups. The sources list them separately: Moscow Heritage specifies sixteen shells, sixteen mosaic flowers and sixteen decorative still lifes, while the official VDNKh website describes small fountains with animal figures in the basin. The four types refer only to the last of these series.

This distinction is particularly important in photographs showing the fountain as a whole. The central flower is easy to recognise; the small figures beside the water and the bronzes along the rim often merge into a dense decorative band. Unless an image shows a particular plinth closely enough, it cannot be used to compare the still-life types reliably. An overall photograph helps explain the arrangement of the series, while a detail view or plan allows the differences between models to be analysed. A single detailed photograph shows the form of a group, but not how often it is repeated; establishing that would require comparing all sixteen positions.

How is the water display arranged behind the bronze groups?

The magazine describes four circular groups of fountains around the tiered pedestal. Jets of water rose above the horizontal sequence of still lifes and the central flower. The 2017 publication gives a height of up to 20 metres, while VDNKh’s 2019 restoration announcement cites a historic height of 15 metres. The publications do not explain the difference in measurements, so they cannot establish the original height of the jets.

Beneath the central sculptural structure is a machinery room containing pumps, pipes, shut-off valves, jet controls, lighting and ventilation. According to the 2017 publication, the entrance to the gallery leading to it lies between the basin and Pavilion No. 58. The author states that the gallery extends for 24.5 metres, with reduced headroom beneath the basin floor. These hidden spaces explain why the visible fountain cannot be described simply as a sculpture standing in water.

The length of the service gallery reveals the scale of the engineering infrastructure supporting the lighting, jets and decorative ensemble. The bronze still lifes stand at the edge of the basin, where the lights were installed; the four circular groups and animal figures add layers to the water display, while the central flower provides height and colour. In this arrangement, the repeated sequence ties together the basin’s extended architectural form, rather than merely filling sixteen empty spaces.

What does a comparison with Friendship of Nations reveal?

The neighbouring Friendship of Nations fountain shows how differently the same sixteen republics could be represented. There, the republics are depicted as female figures in national dress, each representing a particular territory. At the Stone Flower, the number was retained in the series of still lifes and other repeated details, but the plan to give each still life its own distinctive set of objects was ultimately not realised. This comparison concerns the composition of the two fountains, rather than the quality of their artistic design.

Both ensembles were created for the 1954 exhibition to designs by the architect Konstantin Topuridze; the Moscow Heritage publication names Prokopy Dobrynin as the sculptor responsible for the Stone Flower. Their shared date and proximity make the comparison more meaningful, but do not make the compositions interchangeable: in one, female figures around a central sheaf represent the republics; in the other, still lifes stand beside a basin with a fairy-tale flower bud.

What do the two fountains actually have in common?

Friendship of Nations and the Stone Flower were created during the redevelopment of the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition in 1954. The Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage’s magazine associates both projects with the architects Konstantin Topuridze and Grigory Konstantinovsky. It credits Prokopy Dobrynin with the Stone Flower’s sculptural work and mentions that some elements were made in the workshops of the USSR Academy of Arts. Official VDNKh pages more often name Topuridze as the designer. These accounts do not necessarily contradict one another: a brief entry about a monument and a detailed historical publication list contributors with different degrees of completeness.

At Friendship of Nations, the sixteen republics are represented by female figures in national dress. Mazikov also notes how they are distinguished: by each figure’s clothing and attributes. At the Stone Flower, visitors encounter sixteen arrangements of nature’s bounty, but the sequence of four types does not offer the same range of individual representations. The comparison therefore examines a specific artistic technique — how clearly the elements can be distinguished — rather than attempting to determine which fountain conveyed the exhibition’s concept ‘more accurately’.

Friendship of Nations also had a proposed finish that was never realised: an editorial note in Moscow Heritage states that the female figures were initially intended to be covered in coloured smalt, but were ultimately gilded. This is another documented change in the design. It shows that the final appearance of an exhibition ensemble did not always match its creators’ early proposals. However, the reason for this change cannot automatically be applied to the decision about the Stone Flower’s still lifes.

At the centre of Friendship of Nations stands a sheaf of wheat, sunflowers and hemp — the crops named in the magazine article. At the Stone Flower, the agricultural theme is moved to the perimeter and combined with the image of a fantastical flower bud. This rearrangement changes how the composition is read: in the first, the harvest unifies the central group; in the second, groups of objects encircle the basin, leaving the centre to the main sculpture. This helps explain why the still lifes are important to the composition’s meaning, although many visitors initially notice only its smalt and water jets.

What does the restoration confirm?

VDNKh’s materials on the restoration of the Stone Flower fountain in 2018–2019 confirm that the sixteen bronze still lifes were regarded as part of the fountain’s historic appearance. An announcement dated 13 March 2019 lists these compositions on granite plinths and describes the cleaning of sculptural elements and the replacement of missing parts. The aim was to preserve the existing ensemble, rather than return to the sixteen individual representations once envisaged.

This distinction is fundamental to understanding the monument after restoration. Restoring a damaged bronze still life means working with the historic composition as it was actually built. Replacing it with an individual representation of a republic based on the early concept would mean altering the monument. The VDNKh announcements reviewed contain no information about any such replacement; the present sequence should therefore be understood as a restored version with repeated types.

How can repairs be distinguished from restoring the historic appearance?

By the 2010s, decorative details of the Stone Flower had been damaged and its engineering equipment needed updating. The Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage’s magazine reports emergency stabilisation measures in 2014 and the start of major repairs and extensive restoration in 2017. VDNKh dates the start of the comprehensive restoration of the two main fountains to October 2018; announcements from April 2019 already describe test runs and the restoration of their historic appearance. This chronology records different stages of a single process.

According to a VDNKh announcement dated 18 April 2019, losses of smalt in some areas had reached 75 per cent by the start of the comprehensive works. The worn pumping equipment was delivering less than half its former capacity, and some jets were not working. VDNKh states that specialists preserved around 30 per cent of the original smalt and made the rest to historic samples; the Moscow Government’s final report for 2019 separately states that around 20 per cent of the dismantled mosaic was reinstalled. The first proportion concerns original elements, while the second concerns reinstallation after dismantling; the denominators also differ, so these figures cannot be added together, subtracted from one another or presented as a measure of losses across the entire ensemble. These figures concern the mosaic and the condition of the water system, rather than the number of still-life types. They therefore cannot explain the design decision made in 1954.

VDNKh also describes how the craftspeople determined the colours for the new smalt. Dirt and prolonged exposure to the elements had altered the appearance of the old glass pieces; once the surviving tesserae had been cleaned, it became clear that the original finish was brighter than the later, familiar appearance. This episode reveals the limits of visual memory: the mosaic’s shades before the repairs did not necessarily reflect the palette of 1954. Cleaning clarified the colour scheme of the central bud; the number of bronze still-life types is established through other sources — the magazine text and the plan.

According to VDNKh’s final post-restoration announcement, eleven new units replaced five old ones in the Stone Flower’s pumping system; the jets were raised from seven or eight metres to their historic height of fifteen metres. The water main and tens of kilometres of electrical wiring serving the two fountains were replaced. These figures concern the restoration of the water and lighting systems. The groups around the perimeter were preserved as part of the ensemble as built: official announcements describe the cleaning of sculptural details and the replacement of missing parts.

In its publication marking the reopening after restoration, VDNKh lists sixteen bronze still lifes, sixteen cast-iron shell-shaped bowls, 23 recreated sturgeon sculptures and one restored sturgeon sculpture. The list is useful because it distinguishes between different types of decoration. The restoration account confirms the presence of the still lifes after the 2019 works, but does not turn a much later press release into evidence of the reasons behind a creative decision made in the mid-20th century.

Why do the sources give different numbers of geese?

Moscow Heritage magazine describes the small fountains beneath the sequence of bronze groups. In an article about the architect Konstantin Topuridze, VDNKh clarifies their arrangement: beneath each of the sixteen still lifes is a sculptural group of three geese. This gives 48 figures — the number cited in the announcement of the reopening after the 2019 restoration. Thus, 16 groups contain 48 individual sculptures.

VDNKh’s announcement dated 24 April 2019, however, refers to the refurbishment of sixteen goose figures without explaining how they were counted. This wording differs from the later report of 48 sculptures and cannot be treated as a complete inventory. For the question explored in this article, it is important to distinguish the units being counted: sixteen positions for the still lifes, four types of composition, and the individual figures of the small fountains.

How can the account of four types be verified rather than treated as conjecture?

Verification requires two sources from the same issue of Moscow Heritage: the editorial note on the spread about the Stone Flower and the plan printed alongside it. The note describes the original intention to give each of the sixteen republics its own selection of produce, followed by the decision to reproduce four variants. The drawing separately identifies these types of bronze groups in its key. VDNKh’s official entry and restoration materials confirm the number of still lifes themselves.

This chain of sources carries more weight than a single story about the monument, but it has its limits. The 2017 magazine article was written decades after the design process and does not reproduce, in this section, an order, minutes of an artistic council meeting or the creators’ correspondence concerning the change of concept. VDNKh’s entry describes what visitors see, while the restoration news describes the work carried out. None of these types of publication provides grounds for presenting cost savings, deadlines, an official’s wishes or compositional preferences as the established reason for abandoning the original variety.

Nor should the opposite conclusion be drawn: that the four variants appeared only in 2019 as a result of recreating lost decoration. The Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage’s plan and text recorded this arrangement in 2017, before the comprehensive restoration of 2018–2019; the authors were discussing a change to the historic design. VDNKh reports the restoration of the ensemble’s appearance, rather than a reduction in the variety of still lifes. The chronology itself rules out an explanation based on the later repairs.

If signed design sketches or a record of the decision become available, the answer to ‘why’ may become clearer. For now, sixteen positions, four repeated models and the intention to create individual representations of the republics are established. The sources used do not reveal why the programme of individual compositions was reduced.

What answer remains after checking the sources?

The sixteen still lifes retained the number associated with the exhibition’s programme of representing the republics, while the four types show the form the final decorative sequence took. This change is recorded in the Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage’s publication and is also visible on the fountain’s plan. The reason for the change remains an open historical question: the documents on which this analysis is based do not state it.

You can see both ensembles and compare how the republics are depicted on VDNKh and Space tour: the route passes the Friendship of Peoples and Stone Flower fountains. As of 17 October 2026, the official listing states that the fountain is closed for the autumn and winter season; you can view the still-life sculptures, but should not expect the water jets to be running.

Sources

1. Moscow Heritage, No. 6 (54), 2017: an article on the fountains of VDNKh and a plan of the Stone Flower fountain
2. VDNKh: the Stone Flower fountain
3. VDNKh: restoration of the Friendship of Peoples and Stone Flower fountains
4. VDNKh: the Stone Flower fountain will operate at full capacity after restoration, 18 April 2019
5. VDNKh: the Friendship of Peoples and Stone Flower fountains reopened after restoration
6. VDNKh: a quiz about the Stone Flower and Friendship of Peoples fountains, 24 April 2019
7. VDNKh: how architect Konstantin Topuridze created the fountains
8. ‘VDNKh and Space’ tour: published itinerary
9. Moscow Government: report on the implementation of the ‘Urban Environment Development’ state programme for 2019
10. ‘Moskvoved’, No. 4 (8), 2024: the Stone Flower fountain and its equipment after restoration
11. Supreme Soviet of the USSR: law on the reorganisation of the Karelo-Finnish SSR, 16 July 1956
12. Sergei Sobyanin: reopening of the VDNKh fountains after restoration, 30 April 2019
13. ‘Tomsky Obzor’: an interview with restorer Viktoria Yakovleva about the smalt used in the ‘Stone Flower’ fountain