This press conference, convened to announce the agreement between the two organizations, is perhaps the first public action taken by Andrei Bokov since his election as president of the Russian Union of Architects. It is curious that it turned out to be associated with the protection of monuments.
As an introduction, Andrei Bokov expressed his commitment to the principles of the Venice Charter - in particular, the fact that the old parts of the building and new additions should be different from each other (a principle put forward at the end of the 19th century by Camillo Boito). In turn, the head of Rosokhrankultura, Alexander Kibovsky, expressed the hope that the agreement would help overcome the disunity between architects and the "community for the protection of cultural heritage." According to Alexander Kibovsky, a true professional architect will always respect the work of his predecessors.
The signed agreement was developed by the commission of the Union of Architects of Russia for the preservation of the architectural and urban planning heritage (I. A. Markina, I. K. Zaik) and K. E. Zaitsev and A. A. Nikiforov - on the part of the Federal Service for Supervision of Compliance with Legislation in the Field of Protection of Cultural Heritage. This is a very general document, similar to an agreement of intent, and even more like an agreement on friendship and cooperation. The Union of Architects will participate in the development of by-laws for the protection of heritage, in the certification of architects-restorers and in the review of project documentation - Rosokhrankultura intends to attract union specialists as experts for all three cases. The union, in turn, will attract specialists from the federal service to "participate in the commissions for the qualification selection of architects when granting the right to architectural and urban planning."
The last phrase needs to be deciphered. Basically, this is about what should replace architectural design licenses by 2010. As you know, licenses are no longer issued and will expire at the end of this year. Architects should unite in self-regulatory organizations (SROs), which will issue permits instead of licenses. Several such organizations have already been created; an SRO association has recently been established under the Union of Architects. To become a member of an SRO, one must be in the union of architects, and moreover, obtaining a permit for architectural activity is linked to the personal certification of architects in the union. So formally, the SRO issues permits - workshops, but in fact, for this it is necessary to obtain the very "right to design" from the commission of the Union of Architects. The union plans to involve Rosokhrankultura in the process of issuing these "rights".
In essence, the attempt to interact between the union of architects and the federal service for the protection of heritage, indicated on March 13, should be a positive phenomenon. If it entails the development of a more responsible attitude of architects towards monuments and the historical environment. The only, albeit major, “but” is the lack of specifics.
Obviously, Rosokhrankultura is interested in professional experts, the source of which in this case is the union. This raises the question - who exactly will these experts be who will participate in the revision of legislation, certify restorers and evaluate restoration projects?
It is known that the professions of an architect and a restorer are quite different from each other, although both are trained at the Moscow Architectural Institute, but at different departments and in fact they receive different education. According to the idea of the restorers, it would be necessary to certify the restorers. An architect, on the other hand, is a profession with a large creative scope, and by no means always this creative scope is successfully combined with an understanding of the principles of the Italian, Athenian and Venetian Charters. Once, back in my student days, I had a chance to visit Grekov's Novgorod studio, where frescoes that had been sprinkled from the walls of the Savior on Kovalevo during the war were being assembled in miniature pieces. There is a lot of work there, and volunteers were attracted for less skilled operations. So, there they told us an interesting thing: you can take anyone for this job, physicists, mathematicians, but only (!) Not artists. Artists always strive to speculate, paint and brighten something, because they have a creative nature, and this is usually contraindicated in scientific restoration.
It is about the same with architects - unfortunately, the hope expressed by Alexander Kibovsky that a professional will respect the work of the former professional does not stand up to serious criticism. Was the architect Bazhenov a professional? Did you dismantle the Kremlin wall? Even Catherine II seemed to have more respect, who asked to return everything to its place. On the other hand, a creative architect will be imbued with respect - he will think that he has penetrated the idea of his predecessor - and will finish building something in his own way.
In this sense, making architects experts in restoration and conservation is, sorry, tantamount to calling a wolf to guard the sheep.
In addition to purely creative impulses, there is a problem of a different nature. Monuments are destroyed and falsified in our time, not so much by the will of the architects as by the customers. And if the architect does not follow the wishes of the customer, he loses orders. Here is the famous architect Ilya Utkin, laureate of the Venetian "Golden Lion" signed a collective letter on the protection of Moscow monuments - and immediately lost orders. Therefore, the rest do not sign, who does not want to lose orders. So the disunity between architects and guardians is not entirely artificial, rather the opposite - it is essential and immanent, completely natural and has always existed. Therefore, it is quite logical that when working with monuments, architects involve restorers - architects make themselves new, while restorers take care of the old.
On the other hand, any educated person now, probably, should take care of the monuments, and above all the architect, who (unlike many) it is so easy to destroy this monument. This, as Andrei Bokov rightly said, is a matter of ethics, which the union is quite capable of taking care of. To exclude, for example, those who build dummies from the union, contributes to the disappearance of monuments and does not give them "rights" and "admissions." It would be nice, for example, to exclude the architect Denisov, who builds dummies (with the same Rosokhrankultura), but at the same time manages to act as an expert criticizing the restoration of the Bolshoi Theater. It's either one thing or the other. Either violate all conceivable norms yourself, or criticize others. You have to choose.
Somewhat doubtful in this context was the position of Alexander Kibovsky in relation to social movements in defense of monuments, which the head of Rosokhrankultura described as not quite constructive and not respecting Federal Law 73. It is obvious that the Union of Architects is interested in the federal service not as a public organization, but as a group of experts. But one must admit that it was the public who managed to draw attention to the most scandalous projects, especially in those cases when the voice of experts for one reason or another was almost inaudible …
It is hard not to notice that the agreement was concluded at a time when the public has claims to the project of "Helikon-Opera" by the president of the Union of Architects Andrei Bokov. When asked to comment on the current situation, Andrei Bokov replied: that the project is fully coordinated; that its goal is to make the monument alive and to help the development of the theater, which is also a cultural object; that he personally considers him quite delicate; that the principle of distinction between old and new parts is observed in it. The situation is really difficult. It is true that the project was approved by Alexey Komech himself. On the other hand, it is also true that the monument is largely destroyed and transformed. Who is wrong here? Either the defenders of antiquity are too strict, or the customer (and the architects) approached the task in a very creative way?
Even this example shows how confusing the relationship between architects and monuments is. They definitely need to be unraveled. The very fact of the conclusion of the agreement allows us to hope that, as Andrei Bokov said at a press conference, "the crisis will allow us to take a break and sort out the situation." Here is a crisis, there is no money or orders, there is no work, you can think about monuments. Russian peasants were so engaged in handicrafts in winter, when it is impossible to engage in agriculture. Only then spring began, they abandoned their craft and began to plow the land …
At a press conference, Alexander Kibovsky admitted that he is the smallest of the federal departments and his capabilities are limited. To be honest, the Union of Architects is also not the most powerful organization at the moment. Apparently, the two organizations are seeking to strengthen their positions. If it works for the benefit of the monuments, then it’s probably all for the best. But I would like the public interested in preserving heritage to take part in this work - after all, from the status of the Union of Architects it is also a public organization. And I would also like the experts to be really specialists in their field, so that the names of them are known, and the word is weighty.
The text of the agreement between the Federal Service for Supervision of Compliance with Legislation in the Field of Protection of Cultural Heritage and the All-Russian Public Organization "Union of Architects of Russia"
