The debate about the role of classical traditions in architecture today seems to me far-fetched and artificial. Moreover, the very fact of the existence of a certain "classical tradition" in our time raises strong doubts. In any case, in Russia. However, the phenomenon called today by the strange term "modern classics" certainly deserves study.
Several years ago I had a dispute with a young Moscow architect and teacher, an apologist for design in the "classics". I tried to get him to answer the question of how the design in the "classic" differs from any other. And he was able to understand only that in his understanding "classical traditions" are expressed in the order stucco molding on the facades. I think that if we add to this a few more standard planning schemes dating back to Roman villas and medieval palazzo, then nothing more stands behind the expression “modern classical traditions in architecture” and cannot stand.
However, the word "tradition" is also not very appropriate here. The circumstances of Soviet history developed in such a way that none of the traditions rooted in the 19th century and deeper could simply not survive. The existence of artistic traditions is due to the obligatory preservation of the cultural and everyday structures of society, which in this case does not have to be talked about. If in relation to the new Russian "classics" we can talk about traditions, then about exclusively Soviet, more precisely - Stalinist ones.
The wild popularity of historical stylizations in post-Soviet Russia was a complete surprise for me. It would seem that all the blinders have disappeared, you can go anywhere, you can read any books too, no restrictions. All the experience accumulated by world architecture in the twentieth century is evident. Both artistic and social. Look, study, think …
And in these conditions of almost complete intellectual freedom, a phenomenon arises that already 80 years ago became marginal and obviously unpromising - work "in historical styles." The Moscow Architectural Institute in whole groups graduates certified architects who are exclusively engaged in stylizations "like the classics". At key competitions in Moscow and St. Petersburg, projects "modern" and "classic" compete on an equal footing and more often with a preponderance of the "classic" ones. Like in the competition for the design of the League of Nations building in Geneva in 1927 …
Once again I want to emphasize what I mentioned at the beginning of the article - I do not see any "classical traditions" in these phenomena. "The revival of the classics" is not a reality, but the dream of those who formulate their credo in this way.
We are talking about a paradoxical conflict between modern architecture in the literal sense of the word and modern architecture, camouflaged with the help of facade decor as something historical.
In my opinion, there are several reasons for this conflict.
In the Soviet Union, during the last 60 years of its existence, there was absolutely no experience in creating and using good architecture, both residential and public.
The luxuriously decorated houses of the highest Soviet nobility served as a symbol of greatness, wealth, luxury and high social status of residents both in Stalin's time and in Khrushchev-Brezhnev. They were either just bad, or banal or vulgar - from the point of view of the outside professional world. But there is no doubt that they were much better than the ordinary barracks buildings of Stalin's time.
Later they were perceived as works of high art against the background of “panel modernism” of the 60s and 80s. Paradoxically, they retain this status today. The Soviet experience could not offer anything better. For the “new Russians” who have the psychology of the “old Soviet” and invest money not even in an apartment, but most often just in a living space, the similarity with the Stalinist Empire dramatically increases the attractiveness of such investments.
And the practice of mass panel housing construction in the post-Soviet era does not seem to be too different from what happened in residential architecture before the collapse of the USSR. Hence the countless imitations of Moscow skyscrapers and, in general, the Stalinist Empire style in the very expensive "elite development".
Here the traditions are obvious - but not "classical", of course, but purely Soviet.
Another type of stylization lovers, oddly enough, are fighters for the preservation of historical buildings. Old Russian cities with pre-revolutionary buildings suffered greatly during the Soviet era from demolitions and building up with typical panel houses. Since good modern architecture did not appear in the USSR (and could not have emerged) in principle, in the eyes of many people it was precisely "panel modernism" that was the notorious "modern architecture". Its terrible quality and antihuman atmosphere were obvious, there was nothing to prove here.
But from this, some lovers of antiquity make a barbaric conclusion that a good city is only historical, or built up with buildings stylized as “history”. The conclusion is barbaric, because the bearers of this idea sincerely do not understand the difference between real architectural monuments and fakes for them. Implementation of this practice is deadly for real old cities, and modern residential areas can only be turned into funny Disneylands.
But it is very likely that the focus on designing "in style" is becoming almost mandatory, say, in the center of St. Petersburg.
Here, too, there is no smell of any "classical traditions", these are purely Soviet traditions. At the very beginning of the 1930s, it was announced in the USSR that Soviet urban planning should follow "the best examples of Russian urban planning of the 18th century" (I quote from memory, this is a common place in the texts of that time).
Soviet architects were specially trained to create "monuments of the history of architecture" and the idea of the value of this skill has happily survived to this day. Hence the thesis, which one hears and reads very often: "A good architect must be able to work in any style." In my opinion, a good architect shouldn't even think about it, he has enough real professional tasks and problems.
Yes, a well-educated and well-trained architect will be able to work successfully in any style with more or less sin. And in any style he will be an epigone or a stylist, maybe even skillful.
A person with bright abilities, his own artistic language and good taste, stylizations of his own free will, in my opinion? will simply not be engaged. And if forced - it will turn out badly.
Therefore, the great poets - Mandelstam, Akhmatova, Yesenin - were given government orders much worse than any thoughtless versifier. Therefore, the Vesnins and Ginzburg could not bring themselves to work successfully in the "Stalinist Empire", their attempts were disastrous. Therefore, Andrei Burov did some incredibly bizarre and ridiculous things instead of a direct answer to a direct order - which is what Chechulin did so well.
Could Picasso have stylized Rubens? The technical capabilities would be enough for sure, but the point is …?
It is impossible to demand from a good writer the obligatory ability to stylize his works either under Leo Tolstoy, now under Trediakovsky or "The Lay of the Regiment about Igor." In art, there are completely different quality criteria. This, in fact, concerns all artists, and architects too.
The opposition of "classical" and "modernist" traditions, which has been actively discussed in recent years in Russia, seems to me to have been sucked out of thin air.
There is a opposition of architecture to natural architecture of stylization. That is, the opposition of architecture, which operates with its natural materials and means (form, space, structures …) architecture, which plays with stylistic features and techniques already invented by someone. The conflict between the so-called "modernists" and the so-called "classicists", which is now rapidly developing in Russian architecture, in my opinion, fits into the framework of the traditional confrontation between supporters and opponents of eclecticism. Or supporters of different versions of eclecticism.
Moreover, among the "classicists" there is an almost universal conviction that this is a purely stylistic problem. And that their opponents are the same stylists, only not under Zholtovsky, but under Corbusier … Which, generally speaking, also happens, but, to put it mildly, does not exhaust the phenomenon. Simply indicates a low level of professionalism.
The person stylizing the order should not be under the illusion that he is working in the "classic". He is simply a stylist of order architecture, that is, an eclectic.
There is no alternative to modern architecture today. Theoretically, there are two ways to "fight" it:
a) reproduction of replicas of historical buildings in their entirety. The practical meaning of such a construction is zero. Such structures are incompatible with modern civilized ideas about the way of life - domestic or public. They can be used only with great losses for the functions and quality of existence;
b) decorating the facades of modern, that is, more or less functionally designed buildings for historical styles. This is eclecticism, stylization. At best, a game. Someone may like it, but in my opinion, it is not necessary to perceive it as a serious architectural work.
Post-Soviet eclecticism is an all-Russian phenomenon, but in Moscow it has given especially expressive results. In my opinion, the "new Moscow classicism" is a phenomenon of the same cultural order as the architecture of Turkmenbashi in Ashgabat.
There is no special sacred meaning in order stylizations, in comparison with stylizations for Moorish or ancient Indian architecture. And the way of creating "eternal values" is the same.
