Every two years, something is exhibited in the Russian pavilion at the Venice Biennale: either Brodsky's lyrical installations, or a business project for arranging Vyshny Volochok. But Russian architecture is far from being as famous in the world as European or - only recently - Chinese.
Grigory Revzin
architectural critic, commissioner of the Russian pavilion at the Venice Architecture Biennale
- We want to talk about cultural exports, in particular architectural ones. So we do something at every Biennale of Architecture in Venice - do they notice it, talk about it, write about it?
- What is the reaction in the West? There are in the form of articles, very small number. Take the Biennale, which we did in 2000, where Ilya Utkin received the Golden Lion, so there were an insane amount of mentions, under a thousand. And about the pavilion - by paragraph, 5-10 articles. If we take the 2010 pavilion, curated by Sergei Tchoban, there are quite a few references, especially in the German press - it is interesting for them, a German architect in Russia - but still no more than 20 articles. In 2008, when we were doing a Game of Chess in the pavilion, there were many articles and even a special program on Italian television. But this was only due to the fact that the Biennale opened the day after the collapse of the stock exchanges, and in the pavilion all the architectural models were on carts from the store - this is not an architectural idea, but a sociological, economic idea, and it attracted attention. But none of our architects began to build in the West, no one received any orders, they did not even invite to participate in competitions. We have remained a rather hermetic country in this sense.
- But some countries and even individual exhibitions within the framework of the Biennale manage to attract attention - how do they do it?
- There are three areas of focus. The first is the attention of visitors. This is a stream of 100-150 thousand people, for them large countries are the most interesting thing. And Russia is on the list of … well, let's say, one and a half dozen countries that need to be monitored, with all our disadvantages and problems. This was once considered, in 2008: the Biennale as a whole is 140 thousand, we have 120 thousand - almost every person comes to our pavilion. And in the same way, they will definitely go to France, Germany, England, the USA. The second is the press, which has a completely different task: at the Biennale, on average, about one and a half thousand pieces of architecture are shown - projects, installations, and so on. You cannot describe them all, you have to say in some way what is interesting. And stars of architects are interesting for readers all over the world. And finally, there is the interest of the organizers, the interests of the Biennale itself as a cultural institution. Their interest is expansion. The point is that those who came to the Biennale are already yours, there is no need to fight for them. We need to fight for those who don't come here, so let's give one Arab country a "Lion" - for anything. This is attention management, but you don't need to think that it is about quality. There was such a study: who of those who received the "Golden Lion" at the Biennale for the entire period of its existence, remained in the history of art - three percent. Every time they announce who received the "Lion", journalists run around the Biennale with their tongues out: “Where is he? You saw him? Who are we talking about? This is this one ?!"
- It turns out that there is no particular interest in us, why do we go there then?
- It's very simple: we have a pavilion there. You see, next to our pavilion is the Venezuelan pavilion. And Venezuela is not doing anything. And everyone who goes to the Biennale knows that Venezuela sucks, even a pavilion cannot do it. Therefore, we do it. The state does not set any tasks here, except to declare that Russia is one of the cultural countries. Even from the way our Biennale is financed, it is clear that this is not a top priority task: in 2000, the exhibition was given 10 thousand dollars - taking into account the costs of all travel, including business trips of officials, there were three left for the pavilion. And the exhibition then cost something of the order of half a million. Now the state gives 100 thousand dollars, and the exhibition costs one and a half to two million. That is, in general, it does not matter to him what will be there. If we did an exhibition on some political topic, such as "Putin is a bastard," we would undoubtedly get the best press imaginable. But we will not be able to find two million under the theme "Putin is a scum." No developers, no one will give. In addition, this is a national pavilion, it is rather strange to do this there - this is not in our traditions. In Germany, you can. In Austria, for example, when the right-wingers won the elections, Max Hollein did the exhibition, and there was not a single Austrian in the Austrian pavilion: we are an open country and therefore we show only foreigners who build in Austria. A gesture against the government. There it is more accepted, but here I don’t know how to do it. This year, the head of the Skolkovo Foundation, Viktor Vekselberg, turned to Minister Avdeev with a request to show Skolkovo at the Biennale. Guaranteeing that, of course, the Skolkovo Foundation pays for the exhibition. And why not, they could offer the Olympics or the Russky Island. And there will be a rather cultural project, in which, moreover, all the stars are participating, those who are hunted by the press, including the curator of the Biennale, David Chipperfield.
- So far, apparently, the most successful is the 2006 Biennale, which was attended by Alexander Brodsky - all Western journalists know him.
- I agree, of all the artists, of all the architects who exhibited, Brodsky is the most interesting. But he was already a recognized artist in the West, and the Biennale did not add anything to him in this sense. The curator of the pavilion at that time was Evgeny Ass, to whom a monument can be erected because he finally took Brodsky out to the Biennale. But formally, the most successful we had was the Biennale, at which the architect Ilya Utkin received a prize for photography. And the curator at that moment was Lena Gonzalez. Formally, this is the highest success of Russia during all the Biennials.
- But it was a prize for a photo - it turns out that they didn’t understand anything about our architecture again.
- But, say, is the modern architecture of India in Russia interesting to anyone? And this is a big country, quite rich. For the last 10 years they have won the party under the slogan "India shines", and they need to show exactly how it shines. They are building everything. So what? In Brazil, we are interested in Niemeyer, but modern Brazilian architecture? Some things were brought by Bart Goldhorn to the Moscow Biennale - in my opinion, there were no publications about this at all, but there were interesting topics of economical housing. All the same, stars are of interest, sometimes processes - such as, for example, the ecological direction in architecture. And who, in fact, raises big environmental problems in Russia?
“But China made itself interesting to the public, and their architect won the Pritzker Prize.
- There is a large state program to build the legitimacy of China as a market in the eyes of the West. It's expensive - it's the interface. Architects played an important role in this interface. All Western stars were given orders in China, and everyone there did something. But can we say that the Chinese school of architecture has advanced to the West? Well, not one iota. It would be more useful for Russia's image to hold fair elections and generally do everything that, as you yourself know, needs to be done. If it doesn't work out at all, let's try it like China. But then you will receive articles like "Great stadium of Herzog and de Meuron, and, by the way, there is only 500 meters to Tiananmen Square, now we will tell you about it."
- That is, the point is not that we have some kind of bad and uninteresting architecture, which you will not show to anyone?
- No, it's completely naive, that's not the point at all. When we were doing A Game of Chess, many visitors did not see the difference between Russian and foreign projects. If you compare the Moscow exhibition "Zodchestvo" with the RIBA exhibition, which also shows the average level for the year, then in England, of course, the difference in quality is clearly visible. And when you compare the building of Skuratov or Grigoryan with the Dutch, then no. And Grigoryan's quality can be much higher and simply smarter, more interesting.
- In addition, there is no special language, style that would distinguish us.
- And you define the difference between French and German architecture, right? Between French and German, I might also understand. And between German and Dutch - try it, I might have tensed.
- But Filippov, who was shown in the pavilion in 2000, was very different.
- Yes, there is no second Filippov in the world. As there is no Atayants. But these people - and it seems to me personally that this is the only thing that is interesting in Russian architecture - they also oppose the global construction industry, against progress.
- Our pavilion at the Expo in Shanghai was also very expressive.
- Russia received an award for this pavilion, which no one noticed at all. Surprisingly, we are terribly worried about the fact that the world does not recognize us. At the same time, relatively speaking, having won the World Cup, we do not notice this - cute? I don’t know, can this be considered an export of architecture?
What the foreign architectural press wrote about
Mariinka II (2003), Domenique Perrault
The architecture press and the public alike love to keep an eye on "starhitectors," a group of dozens of celebrity architects who are building around the world. In Russia, the fate of their projects is most often sad, but they never tire of trying - and they never tire of writing about their attempts. One of the first to try was the Frenchman Domenica Perrault, who won the competition for the new building of the Mariinsky Theater in St. Petersburg. The golden cloud was supposed to grow behind the old theater building, but only settled in magazines and blogs.
Okhta Center (2006), RMJM
The tower, first 300 and then 400 meters, was supposed to be built by British architects RMJM - one of the largest bureaus in the world, but without its own face. They have bypassed the first-class stars in the competition - Daniel Libeskind, Rem Koolhaas, Jean Nouvel, Massimiliano Fuchsas, Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron. A competition with such participants - and so one hundred percent candidate for the attention of the press, and then there is a scandal - the star members of the jury Kisho Kurokawa, Norman Foster and Rafael Vignoli flew to St. Petersburg only to refuse to participate in the meeting in protest against the absurd height of the tower. Now RMJM is a news hero again - it looks like the firm is on the verge of bankruptcy.
Tower "Russia" (2006), Norman Foster
Sir Norman Foster, a reference architectural star, tried to build something in Russia several times - for example, in Zaryadye, he had to break up a quarter with offices, shops, a concert hall, etc. on the order of Shalva Chigirinsky. In Moscow-City, a 600-meter tower, the tallest building in Europe with natural ventilation, and generally a very "green" building, was supposed to grow.
VTB-Arena-Park (2010), Eric van Egerat
The Dutchman van Egerat could be considered one of the most successful foreign architects in Russia - at least he managed to build something - for example, a shopping center in Khanty-Mansiysk. With larger projects, he was also not very lucky - the fee for the two towers of the "City of Capitals" in Moscow City, for example, he had to beat off the developer "Capital Group" in court - as they wrote in the West. The VTB-Arena project - the restructuring of the Dynamo stadium - began to appear in the press also because it should be built for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, which will be held in Russia.
Skolkovo School of Management (2010), David Adjaye
The only completed large project of a foreign architect - who, moreover, is very much loved by the press. Tanzanian Ajaye started out with celebrity homes, made frequent appearances in magazines, and even rose to the title of "overrated". The Skolkovo school has also become a gift for the press - Adjaye is building his first large building, building it in faraway Russia, for the oligarch Vardanyan, and the architecture - according to Adjaye himself and from the pictures - reminds of the Russian avant-garde.
Strelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design (2010)
The only project so far that has attracted the attention of the press - and, perhaps, several times more than all other stories - is Strelka. Having got the most famous architect and architectural thinker in the world, Pritzker laureate Dutchman Rem Koolhaas, as a teacher, Strelka immediately got on the radar not only of the professional press, but also of such publications as The Financial Times or Monocle. In August 2010, Strelka made a presentation of the school at the Venice Biennale of Architecture, and there Koolhaas received the Golden Lion - and the media effect was enhanced several times more.
View from the outside
Tony Chambers
editor-in-chief of Wallpaper magazine *
Of course, I cannot consider myself an expert on modern Russian architecture, but when I was a student at the graphic design department, then I was seriously interested in the history of architecture. And my hero was the Russian architect Berthold Lyubetkin (he studied at Vkhutemas, in 1931 he moved to London. - Ed.). He influenced me greatly, I managed to communicate with him while he was still alive. And the ideas with which he was full, everything that he learned in Russia at the beginning of the century, at that heroic time - all this greatly influenced not only me, but also the entire British architecture. Perhaps Lyubetkin was more influential than anyone else of all modernists. And of course, Russian architecture of that time is still highly valued today. But as for the present day, so far Russian architecture is an unknown quantity. Probably, because of all the political problems, all the ups and downs, it has not yet developed enough, we still do not see some kind of mature, truly modern architecture. A lot, apparently, depends simply on the mood and taste of the client. Nevertheless, the Russian pavilion at the last Biennale was quite popular, and everyone knows Brodsky, although they are not so familiar with his work.
Of course, everyone is more interested in what foreign architects are trying to do with you: Zaha Hadid, who ordered the villa, is she still building it? David Adjaye from Skolkovo - it seems that clients are interested in Western architecture, but do not trust Russian architects too much. But here you need to understand that this whole phenomenon of architects-stars is slowly fizzling out. In the last five to ten years, they have certainly done a lot, especially in developing countries like China - they have built giant contraptions. But now this should come to naught, and in the next five years, interest, including in Russian architecture, will grow. Hopefully, by this time Russia will also begin to emerge from some kind of cultural apathy. We are doing a series of issues, about one a year, dedicated to the BRIC countries, we have already done everything except the Russian one, we will come to Moscow in the summer, then we will get to know you better. China, of course, shocked us with the volume of construction and at the same time that they are trying to maintain their identity at such an extreme rate of change. Brazil is culturally closer to us and much better known thanks to modernism, Niemeyer. With India it was also easier, after all, it is a former British colony, many things are similar with us. But what is striking there is an insane level of poverty in the immediate vicinity of skyscrapers or palaces of the nouveau riche. It's just scary. It's not like that in Russia, is it? China is not a rich country, but it is not so striking there. As for Russia - I think you will be closer to the Brazilian model - a rich legacy of modernism that fuels the future. When everything is settled and the client is more self-confident, more mature, refined, then he will be interested in high-quality modern architecture.
