Vladimir Sedov:
Do you feel like a Moscow architect?
Mikhail Khazanov:
No, the architectural profession today does not have, in my opinion, a "registration", no specific reference to a particular city. It is interesting for me to work in all places of the world. And the look from the outside is no less interesting, in my opinion, than the look from the inside. In general, I am against the borders, both urban and the borders of countries and continents. It seems to me that all this is in the past, that we are all citizens of the world, that whether we like it or not, we are in a global space, and architecture is a global profession. Yes, we know the Moscow situation better, yes, we know our old city by touch, to every stone, but I know Venice and Florence just as well, perhaps even better than today's Moscow. Because Florence and Venice have long been mothballed, and Moscow is rapidly developing and changing every month.
But what about the Moscow architectural school?
I'm not sure that there is any special Moscow school, probably there are just specific and bright personalities of our teachers, who at some point concentrated in the Moscow Architectural Institute, in Moscow. There is, of course, the problem of transmitted school and family traditions, and I feel them all the time. But architecture is nevertheless born not only from traditions, but from something else that sits somewhere inside us, perhaps, given generally "from above". Although I live in my grandfather's house, I remember this, I love Moscow, but I work with pleasure wherever there is an opportunity to try to improve something architecturally.
Your participation in the transformation of Moscow - how do you assess it?
There is a kind of guilt complex, but we were present at an incredible investment onslaught, which could only be resisted by holding hands. It's a shame that our professional world could not do this … Our disunity, opportunistic moments and the very scenario of our behavior, when we, architects, are objectively and forcedly on one side of the barricades (on the side of investors, developers, customers), and on the other there are forces defending the city from us - it is very difficult to run from one edge to another here. Many of us then preferred to be out of the fight, somewhere to watch all the battles from a hillock, and then come, all "in white", to a free field - within the assigned tasks. It takes time for a full assessment. But it is already clear that in the last twenty years it was impossible to implement any urban planning programs, and architects emigrated to small businesses, went to local sites and, as a rule, stopped thinking in urban planning categories, as was customary in the previous era.
Do you see people of the same direction as you? Can you name?
I feel like I'm in the mainstream. Hopefully in the global mainstream. The direction now is technology, technology. We have not been very successful in this so far. And yet, in our country, we are moving in a global direction, but adjusted for slightly advanced construction technologies. The current rules of the game presuppose the achievement of the maximum result - taking into account the maximum tension of the minimum building possibilities. On the verge of these possibilities and even beyond these possibilities, I often had to be. There are still many others, by and large - like-minded people, we are walking together and at the same time, as if in one line, we see the chest of a fourth person, but in the same rank, in the same new wave, the architects of the West and the East.
Does this mean that the theme of the transformation of architecture into technology expresses the present time?
In my opinion, the following happened: with the development of the construction industry, architecture, which was previously perceived as something eternal, from the 50s-60s. the last century began to feel temporary. That is, no matter how capital we build, this architecture must last a certain period, and then transform or give way to another, disappear.
Something like the architecture of theatrical scenery?
Theatrical scenery is completely instantaneous, virtually, it is different, it’s a matter of the timing of life, and most importantly, that it has become organic. It is correct to compare modern architecture with an airplane, with a car, with a ship: all these devices have served their time, then the best representatives are measured and scrapped, the best examples are in museums or are museums themselves, and everything else is replaced by something more adequately new life. This does not apply to individual works that they decided to leave unchanged, and which by the next generations will certainly be recognized as a significant contribution to the cultural and historical landscape. I could name a number of works of our Soviet and post-Soviet architecture of the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties of the XX century, which, perhaps, will be preserved forever as monuments of the era.
And what about your own works?
I don’t know, of course, I strongly hope that all our completed projects, perhaps, will be left for the next generations, I count on this, but I understand that, most likely, a lot will be demolished or rebuilt anyway. But if at least something remains, then that's great.
Do you think there is now Western pressure on Moscow architecture, and if there is, then will Moscow architecture withstand this pressure?
Can't stand it. The division into our architecture and the Western is artificial. That is, these are different shades of the same process. Of course, in our country, due to various circumstances, foreigners were treated either obsequiously or hostilely or with suspicion. But our customers have always had a certain halo of “brand name” of everything foreign. Fighting outside influences is like going under a train. All the same, the world is global, today the “promotion” (in many respects, purely “PR”) has touched a not so significant group of Western architects, and the customer wants to have architecture with a well-known brand at home as well. Our architects have not yet grown up to this brand identity in the minds of customers. It is clear that super-stylish and home-grown things cannot stand on the same shelf. We have two ways: either to start creating our own new brands or to be satisfied with the improvement of nesting dolls, rocker arms, Khokhloma and Vyatka toys, but then it's better not to modernize anything, but strictly follow the canons and traditions.
But the situations with investment activity and architecture are different. There is Prague or Warsaw, where the pressure of Western stars is not so great, but there are opportunities, and they are satisfied by local modest architectural schools. And there is Shanghai, which is full of stars, but local creations calmly grow nearby. How will we have it?
The rapid transition to capitalism creates a layer of super-rich people who create interest in brands. For them, this is primarily a status moment. And now we are in the midst of it - the rush demand for foreign architects is obvious. Of course, it's a shame that they don't notice our own, but we must understand that we also have problems: we cannot be secondary, we must be in the first row, we must set the tone, perhaps we must try to rely on our avant-garde past, in our twenties. But nevertheless, you can never be only led, go only by already trodden paths, architecture is always partly an experimental platform, and whoever does not take risks will never get a result. Therefore - more experimentation, more innovation on the verge of the possible. And we must be grateful to the architectural team that is now building everywhere, from Dubai to Patagonia, for the fact that the tastes of our bosses, our investors, customers, which were formed in Soviet times, have now sharply "left" and have become almost avant-garde …
And we can now create something of our own?
Yes of course. Radio was invented at the same time in two parts of the world. Roughly the same thing happened with steamers, steam locomotives, and rockets. There are certain requirements of the time, time raises questions that require answers, solutions. Of course, the traditional man-made line in architecture remains, and let it bloom. But, in my opinion, it is much more difficult to try to put innovative machine technologies at the service of that great art, which is architecture. It will not be easy, they taught us to sculpt, to sculpt, to decorate "chests" - too. But to solve huge urban planning problems in a complex manner, to work on a different, industrial, gigantic scale - this needs to be learned anew.
And with this technicist aesthetics, with this scale - is it possible to tune in to making a masterpiece?
An architect never knows for sure which of his many projects will go to the basket and which will be implemented. In our workshop, it is generally accepted that the object will definitely be implemented, and therefore we must try to make it at the highest level of architectural quality. But there are many different approaches. There is a moderately commercial line that I see in Moscow. It is very strongly supported by development companies. The result is excellent, very rational packaging for different functions. It is convenient, economical, soundly, but it is the same danger to the city as the Khrushchev five-story buildings. Although both seem to be ways of solving important and even sometimes noble problems. And typical construction honestly served society, but was a destructive force for the appearance of cities, and this "no" development architecture is already becoming a destructive force in many respects - due to anonymity, anemicity, and averaging.
What is your way of communicating with modernity? Do you watch magazines, go to see new buildings abroad, do you know one of the leaders of modern architecture?
And then, and then, and that. Almost everyone I like, I, in one way or another, know. If I don't communicate, then I know what they are doing. But it's not that. The energy that is needed to create a new form is drawn from life. From each other, from architects, of course, too, but this is not the most important thing. Like many colleagues, I have a kind of protest attitude towards other people's achievements: if someone has already done something, it means that it is desirable to go the other way. Although often new ideas, forms, techniques appear at the same time. It is difficult, but we must try to keep up, we must try to get ahead. The happiness of an architect is to be able to turn his ideals into reality, but until you do this there is a feeling of understatement, under-realization.
Can you name these ideals of yours?
I believe that an architect at any time has a chance to change the world for the better, to make it more perfect, more human. Each new generation rises on the shoulders of the previous one, earning at once all the experience of its predecessors - both negative and positive. Positive energy is very important, that vital force, which ideally should be present in architectural projects.
Would you like to build something special?
I would like to build something in an open field and from scratch. Mont San Michel …
