RodDom: Comment To Comment

RodDom: Comment To Comment
RodDom: Comment To Comment

Video: RodDom: Comment To Comment

Video: RodDom: Comment To Comment
Video: Роддом ГКБ 24 | Родильные Залы. Перинатальный Центр. 2024, March
Anonim

First, about the authorship. Here is how EV Ass in his commentary tells OS readers about the authors of the installation: "The designers were Yuri Grigoryan and Avvakumov", a little further "The result is a fantastically elegant architectural object of Grigoryan" and, finally, "Thus, the exhibition consists of three objects: the work of Avvakumov himself (the mausoleum of dominoes), the leaky house of Grigoryan and the work of Alexander Brodsky, which I really like … "- easily, on the count of two, redistributing the co-authorship of Avvakumov and Grigoryan from equal, as indicated in the press release, catalog and the exhibition website, to a priority for one of the authors, as the observer Assu wanted. In what, in fact, is the designer Avvakumov to blame if Grigoryan designed the "wonderful house" entirely according to Assu? If, on the contrary, Avvakumov took the idea of a "house with holes in Nikolo-Lenivets" from Grigoryan and redesigned it for his exhibition, then is it possible to insist so stubbornly on Grigoryan's sole authorship, after all, a new exhibition pavilion has turned out, for which Grigoryan is not responsible? I see that a member of the board of the Union of Architects tells his story about the RodDom exhibition in a juggling technique, like in a railway station game of "three leaves", going beyond the framework of objective criticism and guild copyright.

In principle, the distribution of roles in joint work is an internal affair of the authors, whether it is Brodsky-Utkin or Ilya and Emilia Kabakov, but for those interested, I note that in the nativity scene, not only the external resemblance to the Meganom's barn in Nikolo-Lenivets is used, but also the internal arrangement of the 1989 Erofeev exhibition "Towards the Object" in the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, in which I used the motif and the shape of the ark to exhibit 180 Tsaritsyn objects. Spectators watched the exhibition through numerous peepholes and portholes cut in thick sheets of corrugated cardboard, said that it turned out like in a peep-show, everyone liked it, and no one complained about the loss of the "personal identity" of the objects on display. Later, Erofeev used the same technique for Forbidden Art, so if you wish, I can be recorded as his accomplices in the current Sakharov legal proceedings. In the case of the ark in the Church of San Stae, all the eyes were paired, set apart, like in Venetian masks, to the standard center-to-center distance, only the radii of the holes varied - for those who want to look inside the cardboard wall and see the object there were no problems, I talked to some viewers who saw the exhibition for the first time - they discussed the exhibits, compared them with each other, something, as mentioned by Ass, "excluded from the exhibition" Art-Bla object, were offered to buy for private collections …

Now about the "three essential mistakes" of the curator: "ethical, plastic and semantic". In the center of the church is the tombstone of the Venetian doge Mocenigo, whose money the church was built, with the carved inscription “Noble dust in a vain burial” and marble mosaics of skeletons and skulls with bones. The "semantic paradox" of the columbarium maternity hospital, about which Ass argues, arises here in any case, with objects on the catwalks or objects hidden in the walls of the ark-den. Hence the completely conscious appearance of two new exhibits for this particular situation - my "Bone Mausoleum" and the "eternal flame" of the clay hearth-house of Alexander Brodsky, complementing the theme of birth with the theme of death. Not the death of the Doge, but the death and eternal memory of an architectural structure. If not for our funerary objects with Brodsky, removing the semantic load on the center of gravity of the installation, the Doge who died three hundred years ago would have remained alone in the blasphemous environment of cheerful conceptual babies. By the way, both objects plastically support the luminous lace nativity scene: one with lace domino dots, the other with the light of Brodsky's toy fireplace. EVAss saw "immured babies" in our house, and when we were designing, we thought about the precious tabernacle, and many visitors to the exhibition fully considered this image. Just now, while I was writing these lines, Denis Letbetter, a photographer from San Francisco, sent me another association to our installation - the final scene of the funeral of the mystical thriller "Don't Look Now!" Was filmed in the Church of San Stae. The main character of the film, curiously, is an architect …

Along the way, a couple of words about Ass's passing remarks that the two "highlighted" objects came from another exhibition. For curatorial practice, the serfdom of a work of art to any exhibition at which the work first appeared is something new. The curator has every right to exhibit anything and from anywhere, if his choice is determined by the goal. EV Ass did not notice that the San Stae space had set a new goal for the curator and the exhibitor, different from the Vkhutemas gallery, but there was no formal task of building an exposition according to the principle of "fit-will not fit" at all. At this point in the Assov interview, I was completely at a loss as to what and to whom should I remove the cardboard from the frame so that it would be more convenient to look at the exhibits, or remove my work from the exhibition so as not to injure my colleagues?

And finally, about the "known conflict of interest", when, as Ass laments, "the curator, exhibitor and designer of the exhibition coexist in one person." This is a very dense remark, worthy of a Soviet artistic council. In his own art projects, the author has the right to any combination, remember at least Marcel Duchamp. If I did not combine various functions in my studies of Paper Architecture in the 80s, but was engaged, like many normal people, with myself, I would probably now safely build my objects in full size, but Paper Architecture, in that form as everyone knows her now, it might not have happened. E. V. Assa probably would not have had works in the State Russian Museum, where they ended up as part of an exhibition I collected, where Ass participated, without being a "wallet" at all, because I did not collect Paper Architecture by a template - for example, only competitive projects of the A1 format - but as a complex artistic phenomenon, together with sketches, collages, models of other authors.

… We had a fantastically beautiful opening day, the campo on the bank of the Grand Canal was filled with people, live organ music sounded in the church, I heard a lot of frankly enthusiastic responses. Tom Krenz and Hans Hollein congratulated very warmly on the success of the exhibition in San Stai, foreign participants Thomas Lieser, Vilen Künnapu, Raul Bunshoten and Hani Rashid (the latter even suggested adding his models if the exhibition expands in the future), the directors of domestic cultural institutions David Sargsyan, Vasily Bychkov and Vasily Tsereteli, what else - the English Guardian included RodDom in the top-ten most notable events of the Biennale, compliments continue to come, there would only be joy, but it turns out that this "in a certain sense" success is "a monstrous defeat of the Russian architectural thought ". Why the respected professor Ass, risking being branded as an envious, needed to publicly smash a good exhibition, its curator and "quite satisfied" Russian architects is not very clear. I can assume that Evgeny Viktorovich will in no way come out of the image of the general curator of Russia in Venice, which he has been for the last four years, without noticing that he is beginning to resemble the irritable red-pantalon character of the Venetian comedy of masks. Two of his own projects for the Biennale were not easy for him, brought a lot of nervous experiences and clearly not enough international recognition, in the end they boiled down to the statement that we have a poor education, provincial architecture and there are no architects, except Brodsky, who would be worth showing in Venice. I am ready to agree with Ass on the first two points, but I will note that with poor professional education in Russia there are two brilliant children's teachers - Vladislav Kirpichev and Mikhail Labazov, who have never been invited to the Russian pavilion, that among the countries participating in the biennale, the majority can be attributed to the provincial ones, but none of them, because of their architectural backwardness, does not stand up in Venice, and even, as in the last example with Poland, sometimes receives golden lions. The famous Peter Cook, who patronized Kirpichev when he was in Bartlet, this year oversaw the Cyprus pavilion, for which he held an international competition for the design of recreational facilities. The first place in the competition was given to a young, unknown architect from St. Petersburg Maxim Bataev. “This is your future star,” Cook said. So we have "nice" architects, worthy projects, both ours and not ours, it is possible and necessary to present them at international exhibitions, only, preferably, without deliberate despondency.

I am grateful to Evgeny Ass for his personal participation in my project and assistance in inviting the Swiss Peter Markli and Valerio Olgati, who, by the way, sent a golden model of a barn in the proportions of our house with Grigoryan as a "birth house", I am grateful to all the architects who entrusted me to exhibit my Christmas gifts at St. Eustathius. I am deeply indebted to Project Megan, who delegated a quarter of their bureau to Venice, who worked on the installation of the installation as simple volunteers, and personally to Yura Grigoryan, who insisted on continuing the exhibition history of RodDom, when I was ready to disband the exhibition after Moscow and St. Petersburg. The exhibition would not have ended up in San Stai if it had not been for our Italian friend Alberto Sandretti, who, at my request to find a small room for a modest exhibition, found for us one of the most beautiful Venetian churches. The exhibition would not have happened without Irina Ostarkova and the InterRos Publishing Program, which took on the bulk of the organizational hassle and prepared an excellent catalog, mock-up by Evgeny Korneev. I cannot fail to mention Andrei Savin, with whom this whole story began two years ago, when, on behalf of a "group of comrades", he asked me to come up with something that would allow Russian architects to exhibit in Venice with dignity, as in the days when Russia represented by Paper Architecture. I really hope that I have fulfilled his request.