Andrei Vladimirovich, the first question I would like to ask is, do you think, is the opposition between the Russian school of architecture and Western architects relevant? Do you agree with the division into ours and not ours, into Russian architects and architects-interventionists, which underlies the concept of the Russian pavilion at the Venice Biennale?
This view is possible, there is a reality that feeds it. At the same time, if the peculiarities of the Russian architectural school, albeit not without omissions and reservations, can be called, then talking about Western architecture as a kind of integral system, and opposed to modern Russian architecture, is a clear exaggeration. In general, the division into ours and not ours is a delicate matter. Our compatriots often see relations between Russia and the West as much more tense than they really are. Representatives of the Western world, in any case, reflect much less on this matter. Personally, the division into "aliens" and "natives" seems to me more correct and reasonable. That is, I tend to divide architects not according to nationality, but according to their approach to the profession. “Aliens” for me are those who consciously or unconsciously ignore the peculiarities of our cultural context, whose activities are, to one degree or another, a danger to the national culture. The "natives" are, accordingly, those who fit into the context, merged with it. At the same time, the results of competitions with the participation of Western celebrities or solo performances of these same celebrities in our country have traditionally shocking impact - both there and there there is often a blatant disregard for Russian cultural specifics. But at the same time, one should not forget about the damage to Russian cities and domestic architecture sometimes done without any outside interference.
The current fears and phobias associated with the growing activity of foreigners in our architectural market have both cultural, political and historical roots and originated in the late 30s, when all ties with the outside world were cut off, and we were forced to cook in own juice.
But what about Albert Kahn, he also built up half of the USSR with industrial buildings in those very 30s?
Such as Kahn came to us in stacks. But all of them at one point were expelled from the USSR, despite the fanatical devotion of many of them to the communist, leftist idea. One of the last episodes of the then cooperation with foreigners was the heroic attempt of the Vesnin brothers to bring Corbusier to the Soviet Union … They, in essence, ceded to him the right to build the Tsentrosoyuz. However, the case ended in a scandal, the apogee of which was the refusal of Corbusier from the authorship of the Centrosoyuz. Everything, after that we went our own way.
But Khrushchev finally finished off domestic culture with his "Decree on excesses in architecture." Then architecture in general was taken out of the art and completely subordinated to construction.
These disasters influenced the fate of the architectural profession so much that we are still experiencing their consequences.
That is, in your assessment of the influx of foreign specialists to Russia, you proceed from historical premises and consider this trend rather positive? We learn - they teach, right?
The main thing here, perhaps, is that our relations with foreigners are cyclical. Periods of love and hatred for the West in our country alternate with amazing frequency, and what is most ridiculous, regardless of the policy pursued by the state. Xenophobia mixed with "admiration for the West" is the paradox of our mentality, which excludes the possibility of normal cooperation with foreigners and an unbiased assessment of their activities.
In addition, foreigners are still different. Stars come to us, just professionals and at the same time people from whom there is nothing to learn. The arrival of the first is a blessing. The arrival of the latter - I call them "fishers of happiness" - this is probably the norm, there is no getting away from it. The main thing, ultimately, is that between us and foreigners there should be the trust that is necessary between people of the same profession.
Perhaps two views - or the arrival of foreigners turns into a conflict, or contributes to our integration into the global process. There will probably be both. How do you see your place in this process?
I can tell you that, unlike many others, I do not see any aliens in foreigners. And it is devoid of any complexes on this score. I speak the same language with them. It's another matter that I know Russian life much better than they do: never in my life would I have proposed what Perrot proposed for the Mariinsky Theater or Kurokawa for the Kirov Stadium. The things mentioned are absolutely not viable. Behind all this I guess the wrong attitude to the task itself … Which is rather strange, because this is usually not typical for specialists of this class. Both the Mariinka and the Kirov stadium are replete with irrational, far-fetched solutions, whose irrelevance will become increasingly apparent with each subsequent design stage. These decisions will not survive until implementation.
Perhaps the Mariinsky and the Kirov Stadium are exceptions, the result of a not very serious relationship, because in ordinary practice people like Perrault and Kurokawa do not make mistakes, they do everything clearly and competently …
I think that the jury's decision in both cases was based not on the analysis of projects, but on subjective feelings, on a priori trust in foreign celebrities, artistic and charismatic, and on the deep skepticism inherent in current bosses and oligarchs in relation to Russian specialists, in whom it is customary to see "scoops "And provincials. So, I see my role in the process of establishing relations with Western colleagues in overcoming these perceptions.
Still, in spite of these very individual cases, you as a whole, as I understand it, are in favor of integration with foreigners. Why? Solidarity? After all, as far as I know, you yourself at one time actively made your way to foreign markets - Chinese, German. That is, it turns out that you are also a kind of invader
Yes, I was very interested in doing foreign competitions at one time … However, this is not the reason why I sympathize with foreign architects. Ten years ago, we worked hard for both the Chinese and the Germans. But things did not go further than projects, since penetration into a foreign market is a very troublesome and time-consuming business, and no one especially calls you to build, this business had to be closely tackled, open offices there, and invest a lot of money. In the literal sense of the word, move there. This is what all Western companies do when they start working abroad. In our case, it was not an intervention, but such one-time landings. There was neither strength nor time for a serious intervention, and most importantly, there was work here. Europe is now in recession. Construction ended there. There is no work, and everyone rushed to Asia and to us. So I am glad that I live in Russia, where theoretically there should be enough work for everyone.
It is now fashionable to divide Russian architects into Westernizers and traditionalists. I wanted to pay tribute to this fashion and ask you, to whom would you identify yourself?
To me this division is not very clear, to be honest. This all brings us back to the theme of style, which seems to me much less fundamental than the theme of quality. Many naively believe that adherence to a certain style direction can guarantee success, while the guarantee of success in our profession is something completely different. I was simply shocked when I discovered archaic, historical motives in the works of such ardent avant-garde artists as Picasso, Melnikov and Corbusier. These people worked out of style, were on their own - only then they began to be ranked among this or that. Or remember the amazing fusion of constructivism and art deco from the 30s. Style does not play as much of a role in architecture as it is often credited with. For some, style "non-partisanship" is evidence of lack of principle … But not for me.
The main thing is that the object comes out worthy
I like the word adequate more. Although "worthy" is also a great word. These words largely reflect my attitude to architecture in general. You must understand that 90 percent of our orders come from the Moscow government. We, "Mosproekt-4", are a municipal organization that fulfills a city order. We, for example, cannot but react to the desire of the city leadership, the leadership of the Tretyakov Gallery to see the facades of the New Tretyakov Gallery in the "Vasnetsov" style, relatively speaking, in the Russian version of modernist style at the beginning of the century, so slightly provincial, fractional, naive. It's not very close to me. I can imagine what this style is, how to work in it, but I think that it is better to do it with the hands of an artist, such as, say, Vasnetsov, better even Lentulov of our days. It would be great if this role was played by a very sensitive and delicate person Ivan Lubennikov, whom I invited to participate in the project and I see as the creator of this facade. This is an acceptable approach, it seems to me to be correct and ethically sound.
If we talk about style. Your projects are very diverse in style. This is especially true for projects in recent years. Is there a cross-cutting theme in your work?
There probably is. What do you mean?
Well, for example, the house-"sail" on Khodynskoye Pole, in my opinion, is very different in style from the Ice Sports Palace, built in the same area and exhibited at the Venice Biennale this year. And the maternity hospital in Zelenograd is generally a bias towards constructivism, this is already the third direction
Architects as writers: there are people who write one novel all their lives - more often about themselves; and there are those who write poetry, prose and plays at the same time and at the same time peer into the world around them, allowing themselves doubts and admiration, but remaining themselves. There are those who have found, and those who are looking are looking for images, spaces.
I am always suspicious of some kind of artificiality, sterility of fate and biographies, when a person bends one line all his life, as if he was an established one, sings the same song. I understand Corbusier, but not very understand Richard Mayer, who took one Corbusier's house and, like a diligent student, interpreted and replicated it many times … The boundaries between styles were finally blurred by the efforts of the postmodernists of the 70s. The very concept of style, in my opinion, has lost its relevance. There remains a publicly available set of some means of artistic expression that can and should be used. Although I am personally a little confused by such an increased sensitivity to these funds, to the decor in particular, which manifests itself both among ordinary people and among professionals.
For me, something else is fundamentally significant - the space itself as such. The emptiness that must be organized by you.
And besides, let me repeat myself, we are a municipal organization. And you must understand that the state order is a huge number of approvals, this is a constant dialogue with the authorities, this is walking on endless advice. And the path to salvation lies only through a spatial solution, in which the means of expression are secondary.
Spatial - in the sense of urbanism?
Partly yes. Urbanism is what our generation, in general, came into the profession with, just as the next generation was formed by “paper” contests. It is generally accepted that the history of modernism ended in the late 60s, and the most productive, most radical and meaningful urban planning concepts became its final chord. Until the 60s, everyone was mainly engaged in home. The urban planning solutions proposed by, say, Corbusier were much more naive than the houses he designed. And only with the arrival of Team Ten, the Smithsons, who had a qualitatively different attitude towards the city, with the advent of multipurpose facilities, a new sense of urban space emerged, the idea of integrating architecture and urban planning. It was a completely intuitive and, at the same time, meaningful movement, when artistic means and languages were mixed with some kind of rational constructions and methods. Architecture was then seen as inseparable from urban planning and planning plots. That is why I am depressed by the decline of the planning and urban planning culture and the complete indifference of society and the state to the unique tools for organizing the endless spaces of Russia, which only architects own.
About the municipal order. Can you ask such a non-standard question? How do you manage to combine the functions of an architect with the functions of an administrator and also a researcher, scientist? After all, you, besides being in charge of "Mosproekt-4", are also a member of the RAASN, the author of two books and more than 50 articles
I don't know, somehow I have to combine. There are no alternatives. It is obvious that the balance of time is shifting towards activities that are not directly related to design. But if you do not pay due attention to these activities, then you will not be able to defend the right to an individual decision. This applies to everyone who builds. Another thing is that many diligently disguise their administrative talents, preferring to look 100% creative individuals, pretend to be artists, although they themselves have an adding machine in their heads. It's like Governor Brudasty from Saltykov-Shchedrin's History of a City, with an organ built into his head. Success in the profession largely depends on such a body. But, of course, it is also important how the priorities are set, what is primary for you - administration or architecture.
Over the past 10 years, you have managed to work with a huge number of people: former "wallets" Dmitry Bush and Sergei Chuklov are your employees; with Boris Uborevich-Borovsky you made a "sail" house on Khodynka. Tell me, how do you manage to find a common language with such different people?
Years of joint work, joint failures and successes connect me with each of these people and with many others. In general, I am very proud of the people working at the institute. And the most valuable thing for me is that they themselves chose to work here, despite the discomfort that often accompanies the execution of government orders. These are people of a certain character, sincerely and completely devoted to the profession.
You are pleased that it is your Ice Palace that is being exhibited at the Biennale - the so-called. Megaarena? You have a lot of objects
Well, that's the curator's choice. I think he proceeded from the fact that the project is significantly different from all modern buildings of similar functions. Closed and impenetrable heaps or drops are in vogue now. Like the Munich Alliance Arena. You know, when you wander around it, it is not clear where is the north, where is the south, where to enter, how to get out. "Megaarena" is an open thing. It is fundamentally different in nature. And it seems to me much more honest, correct.
