General sponsor of the Prize - HONKA company
co-organizer - PR-agency "Communication Rules"
Contemporary Russian wooden architecture is a contradictory phenomenon. On the one hand, a private wooden house is the most widespread type of architecture in our country. But the frame type dominates in this genre, and there is almost no need to talk about "architecture". Which is terribly insulting - given the rich traditions of Russian wooden architecture, as well as the diversity of this genre abroad. On the other hand, there is a small layer of wooden avant-garde, which is loved by professionals and the press, but concentrated mainly in Nikolo-Lenivets and the Pirogovo resort, and therefore little known to a wide range of potential consumers.
The ARCHIWOOD Prize was conceived as a way to connect these two vectors. Not as another medal, in order to amuse the pride of architects or to promote a sponsor, but as an institution that structures the process. On the one hand, as a tool for researching what is happening in this genre, and on the other, as an instrument of enlightenment and propaganda. The exhibition in the Museum of Architecture was considered by us as an opportunity to designate landmarks, to determine possible vectors of development - based on the most interesting things that have been built of wood over the past 10 years.
True, we believed that the 120 objects that made up the exhibition are still well known to everyone. And it seemed more important to fix the phenomenon itself, to demonstrate that it exists, that this "layer" is not so narrow. Therefore, each object was presented in the form of a tiny photograph … It turned out to be a mistake, but a pleasant one. We underestimated the interest of the public and now we are pleased to announce that the catalog of the exhibition "New Wooden" will definitely be published - for the May exhibition of the nominees for the 2010 Prize, which will be held as part of the II Moscow Biennale of Architecture (the results of the Prize will be summed up there and its winners will be awarded) … However, it was this interest that made us take the wording of the Prize Regulation even more seriously. And also write this comment.
The first meeting of the Expert Council of the Prize, at which the Regulations on the Prize were discussed, took place in a stormy and friendly atmosphere. The main doubts were caused by the presence of nominations, of which 8 were proposed: a private house, a public building, a small object, an art object, an interior, a village, a combination of wood with other materials, reconstruction / restoration. The organizing committee believed that the nominations set the selection and judging strategy, intelligible to any architect from any corner of the country. In the sense that an art object, for example, will not be compared with a residential building, but will be viewed primarily as a work of art. Etc.
However, the members of the Council, with extensive experience of participating in various juries, convinced everyone of the fallaciousness of this approach. Firstly, it provokes "rewarding for the sake of the nomination" (there is a nomination, but nothing worthy of it was found), and secondly, there is a risk of leaving behind an interesting work that did not fit into the set of nominations. As a result, the Expert Council decided not to fix the nominations, but to approve them based on the results of the collection of competitive works.
The collection of works will take place under the general formulation: "For the best use of wood in architecture." This should reflect the maximum openness of the Prize: objects of all genres (including both the above and any others) are accepted for it, and in addition, this means that objects in which the tree plays a constructive role, and those in which it is used as a finishing material. Naturally, they will be considered by the Expert Council as different categories.
An attempt to correctly separate these subjects was made already at the exhibition: the theme of "wood in decoration" occupied a separate hall. But it was the highest level of the architecture presented there (the buildings of Project Meganom, the architects ass, DNA, Panacoma) that unambiguously convinced everyone that it would be strange to ignore this line in the Prize. But the most unique constructive developments that exist in our country (works of the laboratory of Stanislav Turkovsky and Alexander Pogoreltsev, TsNIISK named after Kucherenko) were poorly reflected in the exhibition precisely because they are difficult to represent. Overgrowing in the process of construction with architectural "meat", they lose their visual impact and require "decoding". However, the Expert Council assures that this story will be closely considered and, possibly, a separate nomination for a constructive solution will be introduced. Moreover, 7 new works by TsNIISK have already been nominated for the 2010 prize. The only annoying thing is that it seems that TsNIISK will compete with itself …
The Council discussed for a long time how to define the social aspect of the Prize, to emphasize that it is aimed, in particular, at finding original solutions in a situation of a modest budget. Larisa Kopylova, editor-in-chief of the online magazine "EKA", even suggested introducing a separate nomination: "the best project for the middle class." Supporting this message in every possible way, the Council nevertheless decided to refrain from establishing such a nomination due to the impossibility of drawing a clear line: where such architecture begins and where it ends. But we, nevertheless, would like to emphasize the interest of the Prize in this issue and call for active participation in the competition of all architects with experience in the field of low-budget wooden architecture.
The proposal of the editor-in-chief of the magazine "Interior + Design" Natalia Timasheva to present a separate prize to young talents was also considered - and finding them is no less a fundamental task of the Prize. But here, too, the Expert Council admitted that it was not ready to divide by age. Reserving the right, if necessary, to establish a corresponding prize.
The question of the composition of the jury was equally hotly debated. Here the problem is clear: there are few recognized masters in the field of wooden architecture. Of course, I would like to see them all on the jury. But then there is a risk of missing out on interesting works that are created by the same masters. And I don't want to provoke ethical ambiguities (when jury members judge their own works). Therefore, the Expert Council decided to form the jury after the collection of works for the Prize, as an option - from architects who do not work in the field of wooden architecture at all.
The title of the Prize turned out to be the most sore point. The first to declare his categorical rejection was the director of the Museum of Architecture David Sargsyan - in the process of preparing the exhibition "New Wooden". But the Organizing Committee pretended not to hear the alarm bell. At that time, the Expert Council unanimously declared that the use of Anglicism for the Prize in the field of Russian architecture was inappropriate, and the use of the word "archi" over the past 10 years had become too frequent.
While sincerely agreeing with the criticism, the Organizing Committee, nevertheless, is forced to take responsibility for preserving the existing name. I confess that we have been looking for a worthy alternative for a long time. But the trouble is that almost all Russian words associated with a tree inevitably carry a shade of abusive or comic: "log", "log", "oak", "stump" … Even a purely special adjective "kondovy" (that is, a forest growing in a pine forest) has become synonymous with the word "artless". There is an understandable historical logic in this situation, but we just want to change the attitude towards wood as something outdated, unfashionable and artless!
The purpose of the Prize is to prove the modernity of wood, which is why one of the most intelligible proposals expressed at the meeting of the Council was rejected: to name the prize "Kizhi". Alas, it still leads too much into the gray-haired (albeit magnificent) antiquity. In addition, it seems that outside of the Moscow Ring Road, English-language words hardly seem fashionable to anyone, and emphasizing the worldwide relevance of the tree is also an important task of the award. In general, the members of the Expert Council proposed many variants of the name (“Golden Tree”, “Russian Tree”, Opolovnikov Prize, “Buratino”), but all of them in one way or another narrow the meaning of the Prize or are associated with something like “Sliver” - with the Theater School.
Therefore, as a compromise, the Organizing Committee suggested giving the above names to individual nominations. For example: the award for the best restoration using wood - the Opolovnikov Prize, the award for the best continuation of traditions - Kizhi, the award for the best customer of wooden architecture - Buratino (or, rather, Papa Carlo) … Most of the members of the Expert Council accepted this proposal, with the exception of the most principled Russian architect - Evgeny Viktorovich Ass, who announced his resignation from the Council.
Noting this loss with deep regret, the Organizing Committee believes that the main thing in the award is not the name, but the content. As we load this ship - so it will float. After all, who is Oscar? Either the first husband of Bette Davis, or even the uncle of the librarian from the Hollywood Film Academy …
So the competition begins. The regulations on the ARCHIWOOD Prize - read here, there is also the application form, contact addresses and phone numbers. We are waiting for your applications!
