One of the first assessments of "Architecture" was given by its curator Yuri Avvakumov in his blog on the Snob.ru portal. Having resigned from his duties as a curator of the festival, the architect did not hide his disappointment: “It seemed to me that having such a large three-day festival, one could start some more intelligible process of comprehending the professional activity of the Union of Architects of Russia. Zodchestvo could become an integrating communication tool for Russian architects, but all that the festival can now offer is a few dozen diplomas to the winners of the design and construction competition. " Without striving to change the quality of the projects themselves (and with a complete loss of self-identification and unpopularity of the architectural profession in society, this is hardly possible), the curator was still able to raise the quality of professional discourse in three years: the festival at least ceased to be a “fair of projects” and acquired a harmonious system pavilions. In addition, as Avvakumov notes, “the jury, which I had the honor to be part of last year, did not award the Grand Prix to anyone. And in this I see the honesty shown by the professional community, which means that the competition is already a position, and not giving out earrings to all the sisters”.
Discussions about the state of affairs in Russian architecture continued on facebook, on the page of Elena Gonzalez, where members of the professional community argued about architectural criticism and violation of professional ethics. The reason for the discussion was the author's catalog of one of the Zodchestvo 2011 exhibitors, allegedly bypassed by the attention of colleagues and arch-critics. Elena Gonzalez explains it this way: “In general, I consider it unethical for one architect to find fault with the work of another. There is only one principle (in my opinion) - do it better! So the reviewing goes to the critics, and where are they? - And he sums it up: - Now architecture as a subject from the discussion has generally disappeared - instead, all sorts of interesting accompanying details and circumstances are being discussed - who looked at whom and winked. And so on."
The opinions of those discussing how it is more appropriate for architects to express their point of view on colleagues' projects were divided. Half of the participants in the debates insisted that it is possible and necessary to express complaints and point out shortcomings in the work. Their opponents offered to be more loyal. “Architects are obliged to express their opinion verbally, on the pages of the press and in public speeches, in disputes the truth is not born, but responsibility for their“do better”arises. And while everyone is silent, and then monumental “express themselves”, then no architectural discourse arises - one disfigured urban space, since objects for self-expression arise not from inner passion, but from the customer's requirements,”says Kirill Ass. “Our norms of“guild ethics”are some kind of game, a complete Middle Ages. We need an architectural discourse, for a start, at least some one,”agrees Yaroslav Kovalchuk.
“Who needs criticism? What kind of society? Probably, its absence, as well as the desire for the positive - different degrees of economic and some other kind of dependence …”, objected Marina Ignatushko. Elena Gonzalez herself, during the discussion, nevertheless spoke for criticism, citing the example of Arhnadzor, which today successfully "formulates an attitude towards the city, towards new construction, towards its tasks, boundaries and frameworks." The architects wanted to exclude themselves from this process and are now reaping the benefits. In order to somehow fill the gap, the author of the post invites colleagues to discussions at least on the recently opened page of the Project Russia magazine on the same facebook.
Another opinion about modern architecture, in particular, the unaesthetic appearance of Moscow buildings, is expressed by the adviser to the head of the Moscow Heritage Committee Nikolai Pereslegin in his blog on the portal of the radio station "Echo of Moscow". Among the reasons for the current crisis in the architectural industry and the emergence of low-quality new buildings, Pereslegin mentions the orientation towards standard construction and the forced departure of a whole generation of talented architects to form-making, as well as the crisis in architectural education that came at the turn of the century: “What can now be said about the architecture that has become” decorated »the city of Moscow over the past 20 years? People who cannot build, who were poorly taught at the institute, suddenly got the opportunity to express themselves in the city in unlimited quantities. And it is precisely such buildings that do not have any conceptual or aesthetic basis behind them that we see today in most cases in the city of Moscow. Architecture is a priori the most public art. A bad artist can shut himself up in a studio and not show his paintings to anyone. The fruit of the architect's work is visible to everyone."
Reproaching the designers for their unprofessionalism, Pereslegin rejects the standard explanations, including the argument about the customer's pressure: “You know, under Stalin, as far as I know, everything was all right with pressure, but this era gave the city and the world brilliant architects. Thus, it seems to me that the main issue to the quality of Moscow's appearance is the skill of the architects”. Pereslegin's sharp remarks provided rich food for comment for both supporters and opponents of this position. “The main problem of Moscow's architecture - both Soviet and new, Russian - is a complete disregard for the style and tradition of the original buildings. Let not original, but some other style at least, - says alex_obraztsov. “As a result, in the center, next to the buildings in the style of classicism and modernism, you can see a panel structure of the 70s, and don’t understand that, sheathed with granite, built in the 90s or zero”. To this is added a complete tastelessness: “It seems that aesthetics and practicality are incompatible concepts only for Russian architects. Here the author is right - there is not enough education. But, damn it, how can a person who calls himself an architect lack taste ?! It is either there, or it is completely absent,”sntasket says indignantly. “As an ISF student, I will say that architects and engineers have long been divided. Today architects are taught as designers (in the Russian sense of the word) and stylists. Sometimes they will pile up such a thing - you will be too busy picking up constructions,”explains the reason for the stagnation of tatsuhi.
In addition to the current state of affairs in architecture and its vague prospects, projects and buildings of bygone days were actively discussed in the blogosphere. Two anniversaries at once - the fiftieth anniversary of the construction of the Moscow Kremlin Palace of Congresses and the twenty-fifth anniversary since the creation of one of the first city protection organizations - the St. Petersburg Salvation Group, which defended Delvig's house on Vladimirskaya Square in 1986, caused a resonance among Internet users. A large photo report from the jubilee gathering of city defenders, which took place on October 19 in St. Petersburg, was published in the Zhivoy Gorod community. As it turned out, there would be much more participants in this action if the announcement of this event had been posted in advance in thematic communities.
The jubilee of the Kremlin Palace of Congresses, meanwhile, was greeted with much less unanimity. Recall that the defiantly modernist peripter designed by M. V. Posokhin was built in the very heart of the Kremlin, on the site of the old building of the Armory. In synthart magazine, a discussion flared up about how the Palace managed to fit into the existing ensemble and how much of an architectural value it represents. “Personally, it seems to me that he is like a saddle for a cow. In my opinion, it is a completely incompetent shed, which would even be ridiculous to compare with other structures in the Kremlin,”Valkam writes about the KDS. “No more a barn than the Cossack Senate or the Tonovskiy BKD,” the author of the post retorts. - Because the classic / pseudo-Russian decor is imposed on them, the essence does not change. Buildings as such are generally rectangular in shape. CDS is a work of modernized neoclassicism and very cool, I must say. The parties to the dispute did not manage to reach a compromise on this matter.
