The space of the museum wing - "Ruins" is decorated in such a way that its ruin is as if invisible. Instead of conceptually celebrating the breathtaking qualities of a dilapidated hall, young architects did this. They fenced off the space necessary for the exposition with plywood and white curtains in such a way that the peeled bricks and the vaults of the outbuilding open under their feet were almost invisible. If the platforms underfoot were expanded a little more, and the ceiling was tightened with the same white cloth, then the interior of the Ruins would be completely transformed, and only the chill tingling on the ears would remind the visitor of his whereabouts.
But no. Apparently it was not conceived to shield it entirely, because in front of us the exposition is akin to theatrical scenery. Or even the scenery of a mobile theater, where conventions must be conjectured, imagination must be used. In other words, if you don’t twist your head, the exhibition consists of white corridors with projects by young architects, surrounded by multi-colored cubbyholes with drawings by children from the “Start” school-studio. Well, if you look around, then, of course, you can see the dark beams above, and the holes in the floor under your feet.
There is a lot of theatrical content in this exhibition. Andrei Barkhin looks like a baroque theater in the perspective of the only separate hall of the work. They even look somewhat convex, especially from a distance. White curtains open on stage; theatrical, finally, the title looks: "Let's play the classics …". The whole entourage: both invited children (7-8 years old), and colored constructions made of cubes depicting classical compositions - pushes us to the fact that, they say, do not take us seriously, these are all experiments, play, homo ludens. But the general impression still slips into another plane: some very serious game, even irony and grotesque, are performed thoroughly, with reference, so to speak, to the primary sources. So it's more like a game in the sense of a theatrical performance. Young architects present classics on the stage of the Museum of Architecture. Sounds. And the stage, and the wings, and the poster - everything is there.
The poster, by the way, was drawn by Anatoly Belov not without humor (this is a mountain of blocks and monuments, somewhere in the middle of Mount Lenin, on whose characteristically outstretched arm a children's swing is attached). But the style of the drawing betrays a very, very thoughtful approach to stylization. It happened metaphysically. In a word, either a game, or a performance - but all the same, what serious children. Even eight-year-old children themselves very thoughtfully painted their monuments - all in the same carpet-decorative manner, suitable for the bright accents of the colored cubicles and even for the cubes. So, children's works are like a choir that participates in an adult (even youth) performance.
It so happened that over the past six months this is the second exhibition of young classics, which takes place in the museum of architecture. The first was "Forward to the Thirties!" The group "Children of Iofan" was leading there with projects in the spirit of Art Deco, surrounded by modernist projects of the last year students of the Moscow Architectural Institute, laid on the floor under autumn leaves (as it turned out later, this was done at the behest of the authors). At that exhibition, "Stalinist" style prevailed, and there was even a serious discussion on the Internet on the topic of whether it was Stalinism.
The palette of different approaches to the classics, shown now in "Games …", is definitely richer. In the Thirties there was an opposition (Art Deco - modernism), here there are many shades, which justifies the definition given by the curator of the exhibition Anatoly Belov - "new historicism".
Here you can find: restrained "neoclassicism" drawn in pencil; art deco with or without irony; deconstruction of the classics in the spirit of "wallets"; Zholtovsky's baroque variation; Empire style in the spirit of Gilardi; Leaning Tower of Pisa. Standing apart is the beautiful, well-known musical theater in Kaliningrad, a romantic jumble of "organ pipes" with a silhouette similar to a late Gothic cathedral.
Of course, there are enough ironic meanings here. The house with the protocol name "high-rise" (an explicit student assignment) is being transformed into the Leaning Tower of Pisa, improved by quattrocentist windows. The government of the Moscow region, performed by Andrei Barkhin, is becoming a very magnificent baroque theater stage. The heavy Empire style is being designed by some kind of children's institution. The Colonnade of the Kazan Cathedral receives a modernist plan similar to Niemeyer's. There is, of course, a mockery in this, and it is not for nothing that the famous classic architect Dmitry Barkhin at the opening urged young people not to rise above Zholtovsky, but to ponder over it. From mockery, we return to where we started - to the game. We play with classical forms, master them and will not forever be attached to them - it is written in the curator's manifesto. The classic here turns into a stage of game learning, which you can overcome, or you can stay with it.
Irony and playful lightness are definitely present in most projects. However, both have to do with content, not form. That is, it does not entail the annoying stretching of columns, the replacement of capitals with balls and other signs of the popular in the recent branch of postmodernism. To the form, even if they dare to distort it, the attitude is still the most serious, if not reverent. As in historicism. This attitude to form, as well as theatricality, and irony sewn into the meaning - all this inevitably leads us to the source of the works shown at the exhibition - to the “paper architecture” of the 1980s, which gave birth to modern Moscow classics.
It is as if a new generation of classic wallets are on display in the Ruin. Which is not surprising. Two of the participants - Andrey Barkhin and Anatoly Belov, sons of the masters of modern classics, Dmitry Barkhin and Mikhail Belov. The rest are students of the classics teaching at the Moscow Architectural Institute. Of course, students had to choose just such a class. But the teachers also had to become venerable enough and come to the Moscow Architectural Institute to form these classes. So - apparently - we have before us the second generation of "wallets", or rather, the generation, taught by them and so far quite strongly, visibly dependent on teachers. Which is not bad - for modernism, a generational conflict is normal, but for classics, it is natural to continue traditions. What will be formed on the basis of this tradition will be seen. Maybe someone will quit this business and go their own way, while someone will stay and look for their own classical language further.
