On Saturday, November 24, within the walls of the St. Petersburg Union of Architects, the fourth and anniversary meeting of young architects "Arch-meeting" took place. Exactly a year ago, in the same place and almost at the same time, the Arch-meeting gathered a full hall of attentive and interested people. This meeting once again demonstrated the importance of the event for architecture and the city as a whole.
This year, the organizers have chosen a very serious topic for discussion - “Link between generations”. The main guests were architects Mikhail Kondiain and Sergey Oreshkin. Also presentations were made by Ilya Filimonov and Dmitry Potaralov, Anastasia Anisina and Maxim Tsybin, Anton Scriabin and Maxim Bataev.
After the presentation part, Oleg Manov asked each of the guests a question about what the tricky phrase “connection of generations” means and whether this concept can count the response in the minds of the architects of our city.
And here one curious, but characteristic feature of the topic came to light. The fact is that in the field of the continuity of generations there is some and, perhaps, not even "some", but more than a serious understatement. Someone treats the experience of past generations with great respect and wants to learn from it, someone considers their generation to be no less worthy creator of history. Someone is close to passism, and someone adventurous and without fear looks into the face of the new and unknown. Such words are heard at every step, but they can hardly tell something about their authors. As is usually the case, not all speakers allowed themselves to be completely frank with the audience, in particular, when answering questions. This is understandable, but here it is necessary to analyze the situation, try to change it, otherwise the vector of development of arch-meetings runs the risk of being left unrevealed - and this is no good at all. It should be admitted that the majority of the participants this time too could not clearly formulate what they are ready (and whether they are ready) to revive in the city.
Taking into account these nuances, the organizers decided to focus on the improvisational part of the event - they tried to reveal the essence by inspiring the release of creative energy through sketching on the theme of "pattern" or "ornament".
Ornament is an eventually meaningful thing, and upon closer examination it can reveal many interesting facts to understanding. The organizers took advantage of this. The entire second floor of the building of the Union of Architects was divided into four zones, each of which was responsible for a possible component of the ornament. The basis for constructing the meaning of each of the zones was the collision of the principles of perception and creation. As a result, each of them assumed that the visitor must make a choice or at least consider the offer. And here all the symbolic meaning was expressed not in words, but in various alternative ways of expression - cinema, painting, music. In one of the rooms, sensations were actively involved. Under the grotesque blinking of a strobe, the guests thrust their hands into black boxes and tried to identify their contents. In another room, they enjoyed the solemn seclusion and pacification of the fluttering cloths, observing the impossibility of combining black and white with color. In the third zone, ultraviolet light illuminated the well-known canvases made in an unexpected manner, and in the fourth, under the blazing cold sky of the Bronze Hall of Mesmakher, a grand piano sounded in tandem with a musical triangle.
Whether the guests wanted it or not, the choice was made, the sheets were divided into four parts, and each one was conscientiously filled with images, quotes and distinctive symbols that surfaced here and there. In the end, all the signs of choice were combined into a big picture. Each participant could be photographed with their work in front of custom-made mirrors, forming full-fledged patterns from what was created by the guests.
So what prevails in the minds of the younger generation of architects? Craving for geometry or picturesqueness, for the use of color or monochrome, for simplicity or complexity? Perhaps the conducted micro-research will help at least a little to understand whether their stream of thoughts is directed to the future or the past. Perhaps it will be possible to reveal the predominance of features of some specific eras, or, on the contrary, to discover the complete absence of quotes and seen images. One way or another, drawing will help connect generations. And what it will be is up to the architects.
Liza Brilliantova
