The long-suffering plan of Moscow seems to be an eternal stumbling block for Russian architectural thought. The paradoxes of its existence in Russian culture were revealed by the opening in the A. V. Shchusev exhibition “Big Moscow. XX century . It is timed to the competition for the best project for the development of the Moscow agglomeration. It occupies the main, ceremonial suite of the museum.
The exhibition itself is very informative and interesting. It provides an opportunity to get acquainted with a large corpus of previously unseen documents (drawings, models, sketches) on projects for the reconstruction of the capital from the twenties to the period of international modernism in the 60s and 70s. However, the style of presentation of the material correlates with our eternal problem of a gap in communication between architectural theory and practice, an idea and its public discussion, between dreamy city leaders, their court architects and common people, who are either not asked about the future of their hometown, or are not given the opportunity to do anything. -or figure it out. Because they do not even try to adapt the schemes, formulas and plans, translate them into an intelligible language for ordinary mortals. They do not want to help understand that the word "washing" is used not only with the phrase "dirty money", but sometimes also in relation to architectural drawings. Although, of course, in the case of our construction practice, "washing" is often ambivalent.
I remember the indignation that flared up in the society due to the fact that the officials did not bother to present the Moscow plan, presented "in the late Luzhkov time," in a human way. And it seems like they were presented with a fait accompli. This method of "dialogue" regarding the future development of the city is still being chosen by the authorities. And the Museum of Architecture has become an honest mirror of this mutual misunderstanding. The exhibition completely lacks what is called the direction of space, its organization based on certain plot, visual decoys, on an incentive to interest the viewer. Explications regarding different versions of the capital's plans (from Shchusev's "New Moscow" to plans for the improvement of individual neighborhoods and cultural complexes of the 1960-1970s) are few. Some projects have not been commented on. Infographics, video materials are also very sparse. There is no catalog. All this raises an obstacle to communication with truly unique and, by the way, very spectacular material that you just need to captivate.
Many snobs from architecture to smithereens criticized the monographic exhibition of Le Corbusier, which opened simultaneously with the "Big Moscow" at the Museum of Architecture named after A. V. Shchusev. Like, the whole fell apart into particulars, from which only ripples in the eyes. Inspection of the exposition is similar to wandering through the maze. There is no end-to-end idea … Etc. However, the exposition, arranged by the AVC Charity Foundation, curated by Jean-Louis Cohen and designed by designer Natalie Crinier, looks very exciting and, I'm not afraid of the word, beautiful. With an interesting plasticity of the space, organized with the help of rigid geometric modules, then with the help of certain organic forms: for the exposition of the sculpture - a spiral podium. And the entire exposition stitches the most friendly for perception and the least known even to the prepared Russian viewer of the fine art of Le Corbusier. It unobtrusively introduces his ideas into the world, helps to realize the very structure of his creative consciousness. And in MUAR, the history of Moscow's plans has remained "a movie not for everyone." More precisely, the expo is not for everyone. For a narrow circle of specialists.
By the way, there is one theme that unites the two exhibitions - at MUAR and at the Pushkin Museum. This is the theme of the plan for Moscow, proposed by Le Corbzier in the late 1920s and submitted to a professional court in 1933. What the Arkhavant-garde pioneer wanted to do with Moscow shocked even the revolutionaries of Soviet architecture. As in the plan for the reconstruction of Paris, it was supposed to scrape out almost everything (leaving only the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod), to install geometric icebergs of transparent skyscrapers oriented along the north-south axis on the cleared bridgehead, and wide avenues, highways and huge gardens to be planted around. Now this proposal of the master is perceived as extremely tactless and lying. However, for new cities, a good and relevant image to this day is how to feel free, start everything from scratch and maintain a balance between ecology and economy, the need to ventilate giant streams of cars and people with clean air and light traffic. Both exhibitions contain drawings by Corbusier stored in the MUAR - masterpieces of abstraction - energetic, nervous handwriting with which he accompanied his 1928 lectures, when the ideas of his plan for Moscow were just maturing.
