In Moscow, you have the fame of a very extraordinary person, journalists call you "the first dandy of Russian architecture."
It is on their conscience.
I'm talking about something else. At the same time, you are a staunch supporter of modern architecture. And not the curvature of space, not nonlinearity, but precisely rectangular neo-modernism, I would say, architecture of a structuralist nature
What is neo-modernism, I do not really understand. But I would probably agree with "neostructuralism". If there was such a term.
So, this is an architecture in which everything is simple and clear. It is difficult to say something new here after the founding fathers of modernism
Actually, every building is something new. A unique combination of circumstances. And then, modern architecture is associated with progress. Something new appears all the time.
Yes, I understand, new square meters, new technologies, new functions, modern materials, unique combinations of power grids, water supply, sewerage systems, fundamentally new management schemes. All of this is terribly exciting. But this is some kind of inappropriate field for dandyism. Well, that is, for the manifestation of the aesthetic principle
I don't really think technology is the most important thing. Although, of course, I want to comply, to be on the crest of progress. But here we are experiencing difficulties derived from our economy, the lack of stable knowledge and skills in working with modern materials and parts. Technological innovations have not yet become a natural part of the artistic concept in our projects. I am sure this is a profitable business, but if today we recognize that technological innovation is the most important thing, it means here, in Russia, to abandon architecture. I'm not talking about management, it is a thing subordinate to architecture. I do not consider myself a good negotiator, I am not carried away by this process. No, there is the uniqueness of the form.
Well, what can be unique here? What new forms have emerged in modern architecture in comparison with constructivism, well, or modernism as a whole? Respect for context? An environmental approach?
No, it’s again not a matter of context. In general, I think that focusing on contextuality is today's delusion, a mistake. The result is boredom, stagnation, and worst of all, a consistent deterioration in context. If you try to be a little more modest, more imperceptible than your neighbor, then the next step in time - and already your creation (very modest) becomes the environment, and the next architect does something even more modest, etc. The further, the more imperceptible. The better, the worse. I, perhaps, agree with the fact that today's modernism, including in the best world manifestations, is built on very, very easily reproducible techniques. So easy that it's time to create a canon. And in any case, to formulate and classify which have become the generally accepted norm, stable in time, methods, form combinations that are loved by absolutely the entire world architectural establishment. And, of course, canonicity must contradict the idea of novelty …
So where, then, is the place to look? Canon is like an army uniform. Everyone is dressed the same
No, exactly the opposite. This is where the search space comes in. You need to change the angle of view. Let's say classical architecture. I grew up in St. Petersburg, for me the first architectural impressions are connected with the classics. After all, no one is looking for new forms in it. Looking for perfection in those already found. Proportions, ratios of masses, textures, spaces - within the canonical order solutions. I think it might be worth looking at modern architecture from this point of view.
Does she somehow look different?
In fact, yes! Fundamentally different. Here is constructivism. Oddly enough, I have never been much influenced by the legacy of Russian constructivism. Of which we are, of course, fairly proud. But they are inventors. They have invented a new form, but have not yet found the correct ratios, proportions - of windows, openings, columns. It's still very damp. Except for Leonidov, who really felt the architecture, but did not build anything. Once Khan-Magomedov wrote that modern architecture is just beginning, and constructivism, modernism is like archaism. Like the first Doric temples of the 7th-6th centuries BC, very expressive, but very rough. They set the canon, and then there was the architecture of the Parthenon time. I would probably move in this direction.
Yes, of course there is still room to move. There is still quite a long way to go
You shouldn't be ironic. In fact, there were architects who took decisive steps here. By the way, for me, Corbusier is not so much an inventor as a person endowed with a unique aesthetic flair. That is, of course, he is the number one innovator, but he still has an amazing sense of harmony and proportions. And what he began to invent on the theme of the "modulator" - he just wanted to get a mathematical confirmation of his artistic intuition. There is, perhaps, another such person - Mies. I adored him almost to the point of a nervous shiver. I am not at all a sentimental person, I thought that nothing could penetrate me, but when I first came to Barcelona and came to his pavilion, I did not understand at all what we were doing! What are we talking about!
Yes, this is, of course, aesthetic architecture. Everything is brought to an incredibly elegant formula. Moreover, elegance is the main thing, and the formula itself is quite elementary. In this regard, I would like to ask you the following. In the 70s, criticism of modernism and the rejection of it were associated with just this elementary, with the desire to reduce the complexity and contradictions, in the words of Venturi, to an elementary rectangular grid. And even the return to modern architecture that we experienced in the 90s, it was, after all, based on the rejection of this elementary. Hence the non-linear architecture. But do you find that you just need to polish the formulas of a simple modernist grid?
Not. It doesn't work that way. In fact, everything is much more complicated. First, not a grid. That is, for me today it is not a grid. More like a matrix. Multidimensional matrix, two, three, four-dimensional. Function, design, urban planning situation, physics of space, human behavior - all of this has some dimension, each element has its own, and we get a lot of grids with different dimensions. The task is to discover, organize, correlate, and superimpose these grids. The result is a multidimensional object with many scales - distance, time, function, structural elements. Each unit is a complex number. Moreover, already here, at this level, it is very important to find a scale of proportions so that all units correlate in a harmonious way. These are complex harmonies, when one element is inscribed in several harmonic rows at once. Like classical music.
That is, instead of a simple order, it turns out to be a complex one. Instead of a multiplication table - a table of logarithms. But it's still a table. And the very essence of the neo-modernist revolution - even though you don't like this term - was in an attempt to introduce the principle of indeterminacy, randomness, unpredictability into modern architecture. Get away from the table into the chaos of a non-linear process
That's it. I only talked about that first. First, the matrix. But this is not yet architecture. It has no beginning or end, it is the law of building the world for a given specific case, but not this world itself. There are the laws of physics, and there is the earth, which exists in accordance with these laws. And, knowing the laws, you can say a lot about the properties of the earth, but not predict how it will look. It's the same here. The principle of dualism is important to me. There is matter, there is spirit. The matrix is matter, the law of the construction of matter. And there is a living life, unpredictable, random - this is the spirit. The way the object lives. Matrix is first, life is second, and this is the most interesting! The unpredictable, unexpected, random movement of architectural matter is just a sign, a property of the spiritual principle. It is important not to lose it, not to drown it in the net. You need to be able to keep this unpredictability, illogicality within the framework of the rigid logic of the matrix, which he himself created. Skip cell. Allow something not to get into the matrix, live your life. Emphasize the weak beat, as in music. There are a lot of opportunities here, it's terribly exciting. Arbitrary filling of the correct matrix with various beautiful things - the effect is often completely unexpected, unpredictable, amazing. In projects, I always try to surprise. Without this, there is no art.
Are you a philosopher?
No, I'm an architect. For some reason, critics like to define architects in other professions. This is actually an artist, this businessman, this scientist, this politician. I am an architect. In my opinion, this is the very essence of the architectural profession - to find the laws of life in the space given to you, bring them to the perfection of the golden ratio, and then let life flow through the space as it pleases. It is rather difficult to describe it even in words. But in the project, in my opinion, it is immediately obvious.
Tell me, have any modern Western architects influenced you?
No I do not think so. That is, of course, Le Corbusier, but you are asking about modern ones. Somehow I didn't need it. I worked in Boffill's office in Paris, but this person is very different from my tastes. I do not strive to make an architecture that would be similar to someone, even if the customers like a particular sample. And I'm not trying to make something different. I just look for what needs to be done, and I do.
So you have your own Russian architecture?
Also no. I do not strive to make specifically Russian architecture. I just do modern architecture. In Russia, but it could not be in Russia.
