On June 7, by the decision of the Academic Council of the Moscow Architectural Institute, the Workshop of Experimental Educational Design, better known as "Archklass", was closed. As Professor Oskar Mamleev, who was in charge of the workshop for the last year, told us, he was not informed about the reasons and reasons for this decision. He was not invited to the meeting, and he has not even seen his minutes - he was notified orally about the liquidation of Oskar Mamleev's workshop.
Let us remind you that the "Archklass" existed in the Moscow Architectural Institute for 24 years. The workshop was created by the decision of the Academic Council of the Moscow Architectural Institute in 1989 (order of 1989-31-08, signed by the rector Alexander Kudryavtsev) and was conceived as an independent structural unit of the institute to test new principles of teaching architectural design. As Evgeny Ass told us, the essence of the developed program was to reject the functional typology of educational projects and move to spatial archetypes. The students were presented with “revolutionary” requirements by the standards of that time: for example, to formulate the project problem without the participation of teachers, independently carry out a comprehensive analysis of the initial data, not only propose and develop an adequate solution, but also present it, defend it reasonably in public discussion. The creators of the workshop - Professor Valentin Rannev and then Associate Professor Evgeny Ass were convinced that full-fledged education is impossible outside the field of modern architectural and general cultural issues, therefore they constantly pushed students to analyze and jointly discuss not only new projects and buildings, but also "hot" questions of architectural theory and practice.
Evgeny Ass: “This kind of“free-thinking”has always irritated the conservative part of the teaching staff prevailing in the institute. The workshop did not receive the promised full independence - at first it existed at the Department of Architecture of Public Buildings, and then became part of the Department of Architecture of Industrial Buildings, and its program, which was fundamentally different from the educational system adopted at the Moscow Architectural Institute, was constantly criticized for inconsistency approved samples. For the last 6-7 years, they have constantly tried to close it: either by cutting the program, or by reducing our powers, or by openly hinting that the experiment has been dragging on for a long time. Even after the transition to the department of industrial, which at first seemed to satisfy everyone, the workshop was constantly pointed out that it did not correspond to either the concept or ideology of the department. When I realized that in its originally conceived form - ideological and organizational - it could not exist, I left the institute, offering Oskar Mamleev to head the workshop. I am very sad that in the end it nevertheless ceased to exist, because it seems to me that it meant something for Russian architectural education and Russian architecture in general. I do not know for what formal reason the workshop was closed, but the psychological reason is obvious: this is not the result of a conflict of personal interests, but the fact that an alternative education system, in principle, is not needed by such a stable ideologically verified system as the Moscow Architectural Institute. And if in 1989 its appearance seemed to us the beginning of reforms at the institute, now it is clear that the educational principles we have invented are better implemented on an independent platform. That, in fact, we are doing at MARSH."
Nikita Tokarev: “It was with great regret that I learned about the closure of the experimental educational design workshop. For me, this is a personal loss, since I studied at the Workshop in the first edition of 1994, and then from 2002 to 2012 taught there with Evgeny Ass. In total, it turns out that 14 years of my life are connected with the workshop. But it's not only that. I am convinced that it is vitally important for architectural education to maintain a variety of programs and methods, an author's approach to teaching. For many years the workshop was a platform for experiments, and at the same time developed its own line of architectural pedagogy, which we talked about in the monographic issue of "Tatlin" in 2010 for the 20th anniversary of the workshop. It is a pity that this experience is not in demand at the Moscow Architectural Institute and does not find support."
Sergey Skuratov: “I really sympathize with Oskar Mamleev and everyone who participated in organizing the workshop, but I consider the event itself logical. Even Ilya Utkin and I, when we worked as teachers at the Moscow Architectural Institute, regularly encountered difficulties, although we did not even try to introduce any new standards and programs, we just tried to encourage non-standard thinking among students, a non-trivial view of the proposed problem. The department has always given lower grades to our students than to its own. I think that even this particular example says a lot … And the closing of the workshop eloquently illustrates the laws of the Moscow Architectural Institute and how unprepared it is for changes."
Alexey Bavykin
added 2013-13-06 “I think this is a stupid, terribly unpromising for the institute and a sad decision. Which indicates that no one wants to change anything. But there is a need for changes, they are happening and will happen in one way or another. Oskar Raulievich did a lot, but at the same time he, apparently, entered into some conflicts. Nobody ruined any department "Prom", I did not see it. There were just different views, nothing more. Probably, the ambitions of some people prevail over the interests of the business - the most unpleasant thing is that the business suffers as a result.
It turns out funny, experiments are still going on. They simply closed the workshop, which said that these experiments were a must, which was "sharpened" for them. Moreover, I would say that there should be several experimental workshops, very different. The division into departments at the Moscow Architectural Institute is already hopelessly outdated: all these ZOSs, promys … Because at a certain stage, especially closer to the diploma, specialization becomes rather conditional. The work shuffles, the themes flow into one another."
Vladimir Plotkin: “I am very sorry that there is no such workshop at the Moscow Architectural Institute anymore. I took part in its work at the time when the workshop was headed by Evgeny Ass, and I remember this experience with pleasure - it was very interesting! I hope the workshop will be able to revive in some new form and quality in the very near future."
Kirill Ass: “Did the workshop continue to exist after Evgeny Viktorovich left the Moscow Architectural Institute? In any case, who taught and did there, I do not know, as a structural subdivision of the Moscow Architectural Institute, it may have existed. Of course, it should have been expected to close, it is strange that it happened only now. As far as I know, Evgeny Assu has long been hinted that the experiment can be completed. Well, that's finished. How useful this experiment was for the Moscow Architectural Institute is difficult for me to judge."
The 2013 Archclass graduates, having learned about the dismissal of Oskar Mamleev, wrote an open letter to the rector of the Moscow Architectural Institute, Dmitry Shvidkovsky. We publish the text of the letter:
An open letter from "Archklass" graduates to Dmitry Shvidkovsky
“Dear Dmitry Olegovich, we, graduates of 2013, want to support our professor O. R. Mamleeva.
We were perplexed to learn the news that Moscow Architectural Institute did not renew the contract with our head. It seems to us that the university is losing a highly professional teacher.
Oskar Raulievich has graduated many highly professional architects during his 37 years of work at the institute; he is known as a qualified specialist in the professional community of Russia and foreign countries. Methodological developments of O. R. Mamleeva are based on the experience of European architectural schools, taking into account the specifics of design in Russia.
The level of professional qualifications of our leader is evidenced by at least how our group defended itself.
We have just completed our education at the Moscow Architectural Institute and we know very well what is happening with education at this university. Many disciplines can be judged more as a mockery of education than education itself. A lot of items are given in a volume that can be judged rather as a notification that the item exists. Design guidelines are hopelessly outdated both in the typology of buildings and in the regulatory and legal grounds. At the same time, at the institute, only a few people can provide really relevant information about trends in design in world practice. And O. R. Mamleev is just one of those people.
We hope that the Scientific Council will reconsider its decision."
Chekanova Alevtina, Marusik Alexey, Fil Anna, Chukina Daria, Rusenko Eduard, Farafontova Elena, Starkova Elena, Pampushnyak Lesya, Gushchina Daria
