Archi.ru continues a series of publications devoted to architectural criticism. After several interviews with leading foreign critics, showing the full range of methods and tasks solved by the world architectural media, it is time to study Russian specifics and, first of all, answer two main questions: does this category of publications exist and who needs it here, in Russia.
It should be said that a few years ago the situation seemed more optimistic than it is now. Several architectural journals were published, the concepts of which were quite different so that each of them formed its own group of authors and critics with an individual approach to assessing the processes taking place in the architectural world. Popular newspapers published columns and articles on near-architectural topics, helping to convey information about professional events and issues to the widest possible audience. The architectural Internet and architectural heritage protection societies were actively developing. It has become popular to know and love the architecture of your city.
Much has changed since then. Some aspects have successfully progressed, for example, the protection of monuments has become a real force, with more or less success, but influencing the construction policy of Moscow. Others have stagnated, and in some areas there is a noticeable degradation. Other architectural journals have closed or decayed, people who actively and successfully wrote in them have retrained as curators of publishing or exhibition projects, the number of publications on the topic of architecture in mass media has dropped sharply.
At the same time, there is a sharp rise in the popularity of urban studies, in which young and zealous representatives of public communities claim to be experts and try to lobby for their vision of urban development, involving a wide range of so-called active citizens in this process. But why, against the background of this new surge of interest in the city, there is no rise of professional architectural journalism, which owns the subject of discussion and sets itself the task of shaping public opinion through a critical analysis of Russian architecture, its characteristic aspects, or the most striking examples? The question is rather rhetorical in nature, since there are many answers to it. Everyone who has worked or is working in the field of architectural journalism and journalism has his own point of view and assessment of the current situation. We are planning to talk with several key figures of Russian architectural criticism, who, in fact, have formed this very concept and, through personal experience, have experienced all the vicissitudes of its development and transformations.
We will begin our dialogues with a conversation with Alexei Muratov, more recently one of the most significant figures in the architectural press in Russia. Before joining the Strelka KB in November 2013 as a partner, Aleksey headed the reputable magazine Project Russia. He worked there for 11 years and, based on this experience, can give a balanced assessment of the state of our architectural criticism.
Archi.ru:
- Let's first clarify what you mean by the concept of "architectural criticism". What do you think it is?
Alexey Muratov:
- Architectural criticism as a genre, in principle, differs little from any criticism, for example, literary or musical. In fact, this is an analysis of certain works and phenomena of creative life, which is to some extent subjective, personal in nature. The degree of subjectivity can vary. But the most important thing in criticism is not abstract cold analytics, but value judgments of a competent person who is not indifferent to the subject of discussion. Therefore, it is called criticism, which implies a biased and even picky look. It is not necessary to scold exclusively, but pointing out the presence of flaws is good form for any critical article. Otherwise, the critic may be suspected of servility and his authority will be “tarnished”. These conventions, this etiquette, defining the framework within which criticism exists, distinguishes it from analytics or information journalism. At the same time, criticism is different from propaganda. In the sense that its author, whenever possible, should have an uninterested view - a view removed from narrowly opportunistic or narrowly group interests.
Note that I have never been a specialist in architectural criticism. Rather, he was its consumer, the editor of an architectural magazine. But, to generalize, criticism of architecture, and more broadly, of urban life, exists best of all in newspapers or other mass media that are not of a narrowly specialized nature. You don't have to go far for examples: this is our Grigory Revzin, a large group of Americans and British, including Deyan Sudzhich, Nikolai Urusov, Paul Goldberger and many others. These are people who, day after day, monitor the processes in architecture and send some critical arrows on this topic.
And this is not a form of an updated chronicle? If we resort to the analogy already used: there is literary criticism, and there is literary criticism, which makes assessments in accordance with ideological, stylistic and even conceptual criteria. And, in turn, forms public opinion, for example, who is the best writer or, in our case, the architect, or which new building is the most beautiful
- Any criticism is biased. There is a more narrowly oriented criticism, which is the mouthpiece of this or that community, this or that ideology. A publication is created on a certain ideological platform, and it is a conductor of certain directions, along the way criticizing its opponents. A whole layer of publications of the twentieth century, post-revolutionary, such as "SA", and more modern, such as L'Architecture d'Aujourd'hui or Domus (with a variety of editors) - these are, in fact, not informational, but "formation" because they are aimed at forming certain professional attitudes. The same goals were served by "Architecture of the USSR", fed by official guidelines on how to create and show architecture. All of these are publications with a definite, consistently expressed position. But, in my opinion, this is still not pure architectural criticism. Criticism in this case is a by-product of promoting specific attitudes. It is too targeted, edifying, commanding. Team and in the sense that it is directive, and in that the critic acts not as an independent and disinterested arbiter, but as a player of one, specific team. It is necessary to distinguish between criticism as a simple process of denial of something and criticism as an independent epistolary genre.
There are also books with very strong critical intensity. Take, for example, the texts of the same Le Corbusier. And, of course, books, which, as a rule, are still based on more complex, fundamental and elaborated semantic constructions than in newspaper and magazine articles, have the most direct influence (often in retelling) on architects and architectural critics. Here one can recall Ginzburg with his "Style and Era", and Kaufan with "From Ledoux to Le Corbusier", and "Architecture of the City" by Rossi, and Delirious New York of Koolhaas, the works of Benham, Frampton, etc. etc. But still, our time is in many ways not a time of writing, but of criticism and essayism. And this is connected, of course, with the accelerating rhythm of life, as well as the rapid development of the media and their ever-increasing role in public consciousness. And the “chronicle” in this context is written as if on the run, thus becoming not a monologue, but a parallel, fragmented, collage narration of many storytellers.
You have outlined an extremely rich world landscape of architectural criticism. What is happening in Russia? How would you describe the level of development of architectural criticism in our country?
- It is difficult to generalize here, because Russia is different from Russia. It is impossible to talk about Russia as a whole. There are several large cities where there is a more or less active architectural and construction process, which you can write about. These are Moscow, St. Petersburg, to a lesser extent - Nizhny Novgorod, Samara, and several other architectural centers. In each of these cities the situation is different, the level of projects and buildings is also very different. When I was editing the magazine, most of the publications were about Moscow. The capital was the main "content provider". However, in all of our few points of professional activity, most of which, by the way, have their own specialized magazines and thematic sites, the level of development of architectural criticism is clearly insufficient. He is frankly short.
The situation with the underdevelopment of criticism and the small number of critics is explained by several factors. A good architectural critic must have many merits, including a broad professional outlook, understanding of architecture and urban planning, as well as the context of this activity. Another necessary skill is the ability to write, and for this you need to have a good basic school, a certain level of education. There are few people who have a combination of at least these two properties, and they are becoming fewer and fewer. As an editor, I have watched different generations of people write about architecture, and I must say that the younger, the worse they write. Among the generation under sixty and older, there are quite a few who can write. Even among professional architects: Evgeny Ass, Andrey Bokov, Vladimir Yudintsev and others. If we compare it with how their younger colleagues write, then these are, as they say in Odessa, two big differences. There are exceptions, though. Let's say Ilya Mukosey or Vladimir Yuzbashev. It's the same with architectural publicists and journalists.
Where, in general, are architectural critics trained in our country, or at least just people who can write about architecture? There are several traditional centers. First, MARCHI. From time to time there appear enthusiasts who, for some reason, want to write about architecture. There are few of them, but they appear. For example, Anatoly Belov, Maria Fadeeva, and a couple of other people. There are art history faculties of Moscow State University and Russian State University for the Humanities, there is a journalism faculty of Moscow State University, where Nikolai Malinin and Anna Martovitskaya came from. Separately, I would like to note that as an editor I have witnessed a deterioration in the quality of art history education in all its guises. An art critic for 40 years is a guaranteed high-quality product, an art critic over 30 is fifty-fifty, and under 30, nothing is clear with this person at all. This is especially true for graduates of the Russian State Humanitarian University.
But even the high culture and writing skills of the "aksakals" does not save our criticism. People with age still feel worse modern trends. Moreover, now there are many trends, especially in urban life, which are emerging among the youth, and it is clear that with age, this is felt worse.
On the other hand, many of the already established authors and critics at some point simply move away from this business - for the simple reason that it is low-paid. Especially if you are a freelancer and not a staff editor or author. This is a difficult job for not very high fees. At a certain age, there is a completely normal desire to earn something and convert your abilities into an acceptable material reward. And people are changing their field of activity.
We sorted out a little with personnel problems. And what about your relationship with the professional community? Is it interested in developing independent architectural criticism?
- Authentic and independent architectural criticism can only be in newspapers and other public media, and not in narrow architectural ones. As an editor for an architecture magazine, you come across several categories of architectural products. The most extensive of them are buildings that cannot be criticized, because they are so bad that there is nothing to talk about. And this category of products covers 90 percent. The remaining 10 are objects that cause a certain interest and about which you can talk. But here is another problem: there is no ideal work, there is always something to criticize for. But there is always a risk that the author will take your attempt to point out flaws as a personal grievance. For some reason, every proposal for publication is perceived by us as praise, recognition of the outstanding qualities of the object. And since the circle of author-architects who create these works is limited, the luxury of independent and picky criticism can result in the loss of contact with one of the members of this circle. This delicate situation is aggravated by the fact that architectural media are sometimes read or viewed by customers and developers, in whose eyes no architect wants to risk being out of tune.
In this regard, many of the architects require the approval of publications, which, of course, does not contribute to the growth of independence of judgments in professional media. But we have developed a tendency to critically comment on foreign objects. Journalists feel freer, because the authors of projects do not read Russian, and their Russian colleagues are also pleased when they bite foreign competitors. Almost no one criticizes our own people, and if they do, it often indicates the beginning of some kind of undercover struggle. Such criticism is not associated with a desire to disassemble the phenomenon "by the bones", but with some other interests that can be identified and promoted in this way.
In addition, we simply have very few people interested in architectural criticism - in principle, society, the authorities, and the market do not need it. That is, architectural criticism has virtually no consumer.
However, it should be noted that well-written articles can have a large audience. An example is Grigory Revzin. It is read by people even very far from architecture. Simply because he writes well, interestingly, wittily. He's just a good writer. Our architecture was lucky that for some reason Revzin became interested in it. I always quote a quote that no one else could write except him. This is about Viktor Sheredega in the context of the conversation about the demolition of Voentorg: “And this is his face - like a white officer from the princes, when he hears about collectivization in Paris: I grieve, they say, but is powerless” (Kommersant, September 15, 2003) … Well, who else can write about architecture so dashingly?
- It turns out that the professional community does not really need architectural criticism. You never know what these critics will write there. Self-esteem can suffer, and business too … It seems that the architectural and construction market does not need criticism either. In Russian conditions, he himself, without criticism, learned to determine who is the best architect in our country and which facades are currently relevant. And at the end of the picture: the society is not very interested in criticism either, which has already independently somehow instantly determined its assessment of modern Russian architecture and its role in culture. It happened at the turn of the millennium. And this, in every sense, a stormy stage, it seems to me, was the moment when criticism was vital. And we missed him. They didn’t explain anything to anyone, didn’t show it or praise it, and now all our attempts to somehow make up for lost time are like running after a train that has left.
- On the whole, you are right. The architecture did not give anything good to the society. But this does not mean at all that he does not automatically need criticism either. What is the advantage of criticism? Criticism is following the process. Since our process is more interesting than its results, this has a fairly large potential for analysis, for detailed and non-trivial publications. But professional periodicals are hardly worth claiming the role of "arbiter of destinies" or "director of public opinion." Only newspaper and online criticism with their readership can shape public opinion. And, as I said, genuine criticism should be independent, it should not play on the side of specific architects.
Let's digress from global issues. Do you consider yourself an architecture critic?
- Not. I did not count when I was an editor, but now I have completely left this sphere. Rather, I consider myself an analyst. I would not call any of my articles critical.
At the beginning of the conversation, you said that criticism is distinguished from analytics by the presence of a more pronounced subjective assessment. And here I would argue that your subjective assessment did not affect your work, especially editorial, when you determined the topics for the magazine. Each chosen topic became not only a reason for research and analytical research during the preparation of the issue, but also a catalyst for professional discussions after the publication of the journal. That is, your chosen theme became such a marker, reflecting the current or just emerging key points in the development of the architectural process. You very accurately hit the most acute and urgent moments. In this regard, the choice of the topic turned out to be a kind of critical act
- If you have a thematic magazine, then the choice of the topic is the most important moment. It should be borne in mind that I was quite active in “spinning” and “spinning” in architectural circles, and this, of course, helps to catch trends. But it does not contribute to a critical attitude: it is still better to criticize being at a distance from the objects of criticism. As for the choice of topics, it has never been my exclusive prerogative. Firstly, this is a collective editorial work, and secondly, some topics were suggested to us by the architects themselves and journalists who are interested in this or that problem. Many things arose in the course of communication. And for this I am grateful to my colleagues, both writing and building.
- And what will happen next? Now, with your departure from Project Russia, will you stop your journalistic and editorial activities altogether?
- One of the reasons for my departure was editorial fatigue. I have been doing it for quite a long time - 11 years. My field of activity is somewhat different from what it was before, but I remain a co-founder of the "Project", and, probably, I will participate in the life of the magazine. But for a while I would like to distance myself, just to take a break from this, and, probably, to get the opportunity to more objectively, more critically, to relate to what is happening both in architectural life and in publishing.
