“Arch Moscow” comes like a change of seasons - inevitably, and like birds before migration, architects and near-architectural people begin to prepare for it in May: a special shine appears in the eyes, things are postponed, time is divided into “before”, “after” and "On Arch Moscow". This is undoubtedly the main event for an architectural get-together, an annual cut and resume: everything that needs to be announced is announced here, and here various contests show reports on the work done, prizes are awarded here. Such excitement makes it even a little crowded, not to be in time for all the simultaneous round tables, lectures and exhibition openings (it has been checked - at least three round tables are held simultaneously). Yesterday, the organizers could not end the press conference by listing the various projects presented at the exhibition. In addition, four years ago, Expo-Park renamed the non-commercial program Arch of Moscow in the Biennale, and this is a responsibility. The Moscow Biennale, of course, is shorter and smaller than in Rotterdam or Venice, but nevertheless it lasts almost a month and extends to all "living" architectural sites (this year the Museum of Architecture, VKHUTEMAS, Strelka and Art Play are participating). However, the main fuss falls on three or four days, yesterday – today – tomorrow. On these days, it is better not to leave the CHA at all, this is the only way to cover at least half of the events.
The permanent curator of three Moscow Biennials Bart Goldhoorn this year moved away from restrained Dutch didactics and delved into Russian reflection, introducing the dangerous theme of "Identity" for the entire thematic exposition. However, the curator managed to avoid all the numerous sharp corners of this topic with enviable equanimity. The search for national color and identity, of course, did not happen. On the contrary, for the first time, Russians and foreigners were united in a logical program with a hint of researching trends and digging in the soul (where without it). This exhibition is no longer quite a textbook as it was in 2008; it can even possibly be defined as an attempt to study Russian architecture in an international context.
To begin with, Bart Goldhoorn got many famous architects to name the sources of his creative inspiration. That is, to reflect on ourselves. The task is not trivial, it is somehow not customary for us to ask about the sources and components (this probably comes from the school's fear of being caught in copying and copying). However, the architects coped - this effort resulted in a small, magazine-style exposition that meets spectators in the hall of the Central House of Artists: modest stands, each with three buildings, two of which are sources of inspiration for the third. The entire exhibition will be published in Project Russia magazine.
This is followed by the identification of a person with his own home - the exhibition “House. Self-portraits "in the lobby of the second floor: selected really interesting houses, half of them are the architects' own houses, and this doubly" identifies "the inhabitant, as an author and as a tenant. There are familiar dwellings here - the black-and-white house of Vladimir Plotkin, and there are not exactly familiar ones: the house of Yuri Grigoryan, cylindrical, rounder than Melnikov's and surrounded by a lattice of wooden verticals instead of walls.
The main part of the thematic exposition is located, as always, on the third floor and by the will of the curator is divided into three parts, denoting the popular trends of modern architecture: "historicism", "complexity" and "simplicity". In each exhibition, one Russian architect, a representative of the trend, showed the works of like-minded people. However, it immediately became clear that naming trends in our time is even more thankless than asking them to list sources of inspiration. The curator of "Historicism" Maxim Atayants believes that the architecture of this trend should be called traditionalism rather than historicism. And the curator of "Difficulty" Levon Airapetov even changed the name of his exposition to "Complexity": "in English the word complexity sounds good, but in Russian" complexity "causes too many unnecessary associations" - this is how he explained his decision.
It must be admitted that "Complexity" turned out to be the brightest exhibition of the current "Arch of Moscow". Firstly, the most famous stars, from Peter Eisenman to Coop Himmelb (l) au, participate in it on an equal basis with Russians (none of them got sick and refused). Secondly, the viewer's exposition itself is literally captivating. It makes you move in a broken space along the sloping red floor, looking at the stripes of glowing pictures. And in order to study the creative process of each author - dive inside the black volumes, watch videos and other pictures there - sketches and other prototypes of shaping. All of this is difficult, but exciting.
"Historicism" by Maxim Atayants is at the other extreme. It is solemnly bright, with respectable bronze models, a number of capitals, and the number of participants is equal: five Russians and five foreigners. The "complexity" and "simplicity" of foreigners have more, such a ratio says something. By the way - it seems that Arch Moscow has not yet had such a systematic and developed exhibition of modern classical architecture, the classics are not so much disliked here, but somehow they were avoided a little, and even now, only having got into the hall with columns together with the journalists, Bart Goldhoorn made a reservation: this classic comes from the famous Russian paper architecture, as if to justify the appearance of columns.
Between complexity and classics - "Simplicity" curated by Kirill Assa, a small exhibition of minimalist architecture, in which the only Russian project is the gallery "Our Artists" by Evgeny Assa. The most fascinating project in this exposition is the Truffle by Anton Garcia-Avril, a seaside hotel in the form of a rough piece of concrete, built almost without mechanical intervention: a hole was dug in the ground, earth was laid on the outside, and straw was placed inside, poured with concrete. The straw was removed and a very brutal interior space was created, similar to the Caucasian dolmens.
In addition to this semantic core, there are several large exhibitions in the Central House of Artists and around. The recently established Friends of Zaryadye organization made a very large scale presentation (also on the third floor) of a large hall, where lectures and discussions of urban problems under the motto “Moscow is a city for people” will be constantly held over the next three days. It has its own conference hall, an exhibition of winning projects of an open competition for a park in Zaryadye (the same one), a playground, artificial grass, in a word, everything that is needed for life has been done with the support of State Development become white and fluffy. The head is spinning).
In the basement of the Central House of Artists, the DNA hall is occupied by the exposition of the Skolkovo competition projects - on the tablets (basically the same ones that the architects presented to the jury) projects of the second round are presented, in the form of projections on the wall - the first round of the competition is highlighted. Using his motto "identity" as effectively as possible, Bart Holhoorn defined these two exhibitions, which highlight truly the biggest themes of the past year, "the identity of the state." Although, whatever one may say or run from floor to floor, it is impossible to identify the state. However, you can understand this, for example, like this: if by 2008 the Central House of Artists was full of large development projects and at the entrance we met, I remember, "Mirax Group", now large initiatives are more and more state-owned. Only the Sochi projects are not enough to complete the picture. Well, never mind, we will definitely see them at Zodchestvo.
Of the smaller projects, it should be noted the most beautiful photographs of those sentenced (not yet fully sentenced, but already almost) to the demolition of the VDNKh pavilions, made by Yuri Palmin, are poorly visible on the gray-blue wall on the left at the entrance to the CHA. Thoughtfully romantic project of Kharkov architect Oleg Drozdov (according to the curatorial definition on the label, "… perhaps this is one of the most talented architects of the former USSR"). Absent, which is a pity, in the DNA hall there are photographs of Gottfried Boehm's churches, taken by Yuri Palnmin especially for the exhibition, but never shown.
It is impossible not to mention two awards already traditionally presented at Arch Moscow. House of the Year shows the nominees for the year in the long hallway of the second floor, and the nominees for the 20th anniversary award on the mezzanine.
And on the left in front of the entrance, in the already familiar place, there is an exposition of the nominees for the award for the best wooden building of ArchiWOOD. This time, a separate competition was held for the design of the exhibition, in which
won the project "Peripter" by Sergei Gikalo and Alexander Kuptsov. The classic frame looks very strict, especially if you remember the funny stands of the past; but it is very appropriate for the CHA colonnade.
Probably the most important of the projects associated with Arch Moscow this year is the School pavilion, built in the Muzeyon park by the new MARSH architecture school of Evgeny Assa and Nikita Tokarev. The pavilion opened yesterday, today it will announce plans for the summer. The plans are extensive, and the very appearance of not so much this pavilion, of course, but of a new element in Moscow's architectural education is a fundamental step. If education changes, so will architecture. It is possible that in ten years there will be more material for identification.
