An exhibition of architectural graphics "Only Italy!" Is open to the public in the Engineering Building of the Tretyakov Gallery. Half of the exposition is made up of things from the collection of the Sergei Tchoban Foundation, half - drawings from the State Tretyakov Gallery, and some more - the works of four contemporary artists-architects: Maxim Atayants, Sergei Kuznetsov, Mikhail Filippov and Sergei Tchoban.
The exhibition is absolutely amazing for many reasons. First of all, high-quality architectural graphics are a material that disposes to oneself. Examining it from sheet to sheet, examining in detail the curls, shadows, staffage, order is a perfect pleasure.
On the other hand, it cannot be said that architects are often shown in the Tretyakov Gallery. They are almost never shown there. And here - the exposition united not only things from the gallery's storerooms, those that have little chance of being shown at another time, with sheets from the collection of the Tchoban fund stored in Berlin. In the center of everything, like the crown of creation, are the drawings of modern architects.
The design of the exposition belongs to the SPEECH bureau and Sergei Tchoban, who arranged the works of his contemporaries (including his own) in a small rotunda hall; in the gallery surrounding him, graphics of the 20th century are exhibited; at a distance, in two more rectangular spaces, sheets of the 18th – 19th centuries are exhibited, divided into two blocks: "The Birth of a Theme" and "Rossika" (works by foreigners in Russia). Thus, the chronology diverges in circles in the space of the exposition, or, more precisely, converges from the past to the present: something like circles on the water, only the other way around.
It should be noted that SPEECH rather consistently develops the motif of the round hall in its work with exhibition design: it is enough to recall the exhibition "Museum of Graphics" at ArchMoscow in 2013 (when the Berlin Museum of Graphics was not yet open), or two designs of the exposition of the Russian pavilion at the Venetian biennial of architecture: picturesque diorama of the city of Vyshny Volochok in 2010 and "Pantheon" from QR codes 2012, recently
recreated in Zaryadye. Round halls are quite rare in the design of modern exhibitions - the rotunda space is not very convenient for exhibiting, as it tends to overwhelm exhibits and look more important and valuable in itself. It is a temple, not a museum, a place of concentration or even a service.
This quality of the round is emphasized and used in the hanging. Graphics of the New Time are exhibited in accordance with all the rules of museum exhibiting and with due respect. In the rotundal space on the left, the graphic sheet ceases to be valuable in itself, becoming a subordinate part of the spatial plot. The sheets of Atayants, Kuznetsov, Filippov, Choban are hung in two rows, without fixing attention on each individual work as a museum value (the graphics of the 20th century in the circular gallery serve as a transition, the whirling itself already removes the museum rigor).
The meaning of the statement is clear enough. Modern graphics are not quite an exhibit here, but rather a declaration of the very fact of its existence - the mission of continuing and revitalizing the tradition of classical drawing. It is part of an imaginary temple of the arts, while the historical collection is something like its sacristy, a repository of valuable specimens.
It is characteristic that the plastic interior statement, which so subtly interprets the content of the exhibition, remains within the framework of the language of the classics. Completely without an order, but the details and spatial experiences are added to the round hall by the actual graphic sheets. They are his ephemeral architecture. Consider, for example, the round side of the Pantheon, articulated by a neatly drawn plinth of unloading arches: “the pantheon in the pantheon” continues the started game further, already in an imaginary space behind the plane of the graphic sheet.
To what has been said, it remains to add that the exhibition, starting with the "founders" of the 18th century, further explores the specifically Russian tradition of admiring Italy, and closer to the 21st it turns out that this tradition has acquired here some completely special features, not devoid of a note of admiration and, in a good sense, obsession, which is so subtly captured by the temple shape of the hall. Nobody professes studies of antiques as sincerely as Maxim Atayants; no one thinks that his architecture is born out of a watercolor landscape, like Mikhail Filippov; no one is so committed to the intrinsic value of the genre of architectural graphics as Sergei Tchoban, who created its museum, and Sergei Kuznetsov, who constantly goes to the open air. Together, the result is a heterogeneous, but certainly unique phenomenon.
We spoke to all four exhibitors of the Contemporary Drawing Room.
Sergey Choban Archi.ru:
Is this really the largest exhibition of architectural drawings made with the participation of your foundation at the moment?
Sergey Choban:
- I think yes. Both by the number of works presented and by the period covered, this is the largest show. Here are the works of outstanding Western European authors, founders of the school of architectural drawing of the 18th century, and a huge number of graphics by outstanding Russian artists and architects who actively worked in this context.
Exhibitions of architectural graphics, organized by your foundation, are already taking shape in a certain sequence. Is there a general plan, a vector of development, or is the plot re-invented every time?
S. Ch.: In general, every time it is invented anew, although we have certain principles. In particular, we strive to work with prominent museum institutions. One of our next projects will be joint with Albertina from Vienna. Dr. Schroeder [director of the Albertina Museum in Vienna - Archi.ru] was in the halls of our museum in Berlin and expressed a desire to make a joint project - we are very happy about this and proud of this proposal. There are other projects as well.
There are plans to work with the Shchusev Museum of Architecture, I think this is very important.
You are a collector, graphic artist, designer, architect - how is this related to each other?
S. Ch.: It seems to me that these are different links of the same occupation. In a historical context, architects were also artists; they were engaged not only in capital buildings, but also in stage design, theatrical performances.
Until the 20th century, architects did not have photography …
S. Ch.: I think that photography does not have the same goals as architectural drawing. The drawing captures the most important part of human creativity - the architecture that a person creates inside natural space.
Meanwhile, Maxim Atayants and Mikhail Filippov are doing classical architecture, but you are not
S. Ch.: Of course not, this is not directly related to the architecture that we are doing. It seems to me that the study of architecture by drawing can lead to completely different results: it is the study of proportions, and spatial effects, and fabric, and detail. It is not for nothing that today, not only in Russian, but also in many European schools, a lot of attention is again paid to drawing, because only through drawing can you see how materials of different structures are combined with each other, how the fabric of the smallest details flows into each other.
Your drawings at exhibitions are always very finished works, drawing from nature. Why don't you show sketches?
S. Ch.: Firstly, the theme of this exhibition is quite definite, it does not imply anything else. And secondly, the drawings themselves must have an independent quality. Sketches don't always have this quality.
Does your painting grow more out of your collection or out of your architecture?
S. Ch.: I think that the collection grew out of drawing after all. And a lot of the architecture I do grows out of drawing. It just doesn't grow straight. There is no such thing that you draw a building of the ancient period, and then design something similar. Then you design something different, because the laws of space development are different.
*** We managed to ask three other participants of the exhibition the same, in this case important, question: whether their graphics differ from the historical one, and if so, how.
Maxim Atayants
How does your graphics differ from the historical ones presented here at the exhibition?
M. A.: The graphics are so different here … I have a feeling that the four contemporary exhibitors differ from each other almost as much as from those who hang in other halls of this exhibition.
The eras are different. Modern graphics could not but be influenced by the colossal visual redundancy of modernity. Over the past two years, more photographs have been taken in the world than in the entire previous history since the first daguerreotype. The pressure of visual redundancy forces us to treat the drawing differently and pull out something from there that is not, say, in photography. I am a fairly professional photographer, so it is important for me to compare these things. But I am afraid to deliberately reflect on this topic, because the task of drawing and photography is the same … I would like to somehow express my joy and excitement at the meeting with these buildings. Probably, Quarenghi solved the same problems. And the result is different, because the era is different. How else to answer this?
Why do you not only photograph, but also draw?
M. A.: But to this I can easily answer. Because different mechanisms are involved. Drawing is a way of learning, the only kind of human activity in which the brain, eye and hand are simultaneously involved with equal intensity. It is impossible to spend an hour thoughtfully and concentratedly looking at some piece of architecture if you are not painting. This is a way of learning.
We take pictures for others to share, and draw for ourselves. For assimilation. In my case, at least.
Have you ever painted from a photograph?
M. A.: Of course, like any idiot who studied at the Academy of Arts, I drew from photography at night, when, for example, I did not have time to complete my term paper. Then it seemed to me that it was easier. Now I try not to do this, because this is a meaningless imitation of the process. In my opinion, the point of drawing is to draw from life.
When I draw, comprehending something, this process is deep. Why simplify it while trying to get the same cheap result? Or outwardly looking the same. In those cases when you did not have time to finish on the spot, sometimes, of course, you peep in the photograph … But this is secondary. It is amazing that now it is much more difficult and longer for me to draw from a photograph than from nature. It's true.
Sergey Kuznetsov
How does your graphics differ from the historical ones presented here at the exhibition?
S. K.: I would humbly say that we cannot do that. I am delighted with the works of Maxim Atayants, who found a resource in himself, was able to dive in and go to a different degree of detail - it is clear that difficult does not mean good, but simply does not mean bad - but nevertheless, what heights the old masters reached, and in patience, and in hard work, and in the eye - this is amazing. We must learn … I still look with envy at the graphics presented here; mastering such a skill, of course, would be great.
Does drawing classical architecture mean striving to build classical architecture?
S. K.: No, it doesn't mean at all. Drawing classical architecture should not be linked to the design of classical architecture, just as reading The Three Musketeers does not mean that you are ready to swing the sword tomorrow.
How then are architecture and painting connected with you personally?
S. K.: In this sense, I am an old-school person, I value basic, craft skills. It seems to me that the way architecture is made has not changed and should not change: a person must pass thoughts, sensations, feelings through himself - a computer will not allow expressing everything. I was deeply and seriously fond of computer graphics, I have had many publications and exhibitions, this gives me the opportunity to compare work with my hands and eyes - and work with a computer. When you have control of your hand and can depict what is in your head with your own hands, it helps you personally, and also works well as a tool of persuasion.
Why don't you exhibit sketch graphics?
S. K.: In this case, it would not be appropriate … This is not a conscious position; there will be proposals - we will exhibit. Generally speaking, this is not true, we are exhibiting it - at the exhibition of the "architect of the year" on Arch Moscow we had a sketch drawing. We have a lot of good quality sketches. The handwritings, in my opinion, will simply not be of interest to the audience. In general, I would say that the interest of the audience in any work is directly proportional to the volume of labor invested in it.
How did you start drawing historical architecture?
S. K.: I started drawing long before entering college. My parents were not in any way connected with either art or architecture, and I was carried away by a variety of creativity, prototyping, drawing, and so I got on preparatory courses at the Moscow Architectural Institute. Since then I have not stopped painting; though after the institute there was a pause when I was no longer engaged in manual, but in computer graphics.
Later, starting to work with Sergei Tchoban, somewhere around 2006, I suggested that he travel to different cities, draw architecture. Since then, we regularly travel several times a year to paint architecture. Our first trip to the open air in Rome was, for example, in the footsteps of Piranesi.
Mikhail Filippov
How does your graphics differ from the historical ones presented here at the exhibition?
M. F.: I cannot answer such a question. I can tell you how architectural graphics differ from an architectural landscape. I have been a member of the Union of Artists for 30 years and have exhibited as an artist in many places, including the Tretyakov Gallery and the Russian Museum. For me, this question is absolutely clear. The architectural landscape that our ancestors were engaged in is, first of all, high-quality drawing and organization of the sheet with an artistic approach. Unfortunately, most architects paint their favorite object as a small perspective, and not as a landscape.
In Soviet times, I even worked under the contracts of the Academy of Arts as a pure landscape painter. During perestroika, the Serovites came to power there - most of them are good artists, realists, Gritsai, Reshetnikov, Nalbandian … Strong, technical graphics were also there.
The rest of Soviet graphics developed in the direction of the modernist organization of the sheet: for example, if the water is light, then it is written completely white, and so on. When I started writing, I thought more about nuances, intermediate tones; shades of white night, quality of drawing, subtleties of perspective … This made me quite unique at that time, these old people loved me very much. I worked under contracts, came and showed them, they made some comments - it felt like the masters were watching me.
So I don't feel much of a difference with the old masters. If they did not make a technical drawing, but a landscape. The approach to the landscape was like an artist. The architectural faculty of the Academy of Arts at one time hired those who draw better, and the painting - those who draw worse. And they gave a diploma under the name "artist of architecture" - that was how it was formulated until some, I don't remember exactly, a year. I don't feel any difference with them, especially when it comes to works from the beginning of the century. I was brought up on the works of Ostroumova-Lebedeva.
Although for me another nuance is interesting - the white night. The Russian landscape was nuanced at intermediate states. For example, Vasiliev - thaw, no winter, no spring, no light, no darkness, half-tone, a ray of sunshine … You will not find high-quality landscapes in world painting, in which there would be a bright blue sky and bright greenery! Maybe Rylov has something like that, or Cezanne, but that's different already.
It turns out that you have two themes: your architectural landscape and your architecture …
M. F.: Not! There is no difference. Beautiful architecture should be associated with nature, with the sun. I know and love art history very well. In the 1980s, I was interested in continuing what was cut short in the twenties, when painting somehow began to turn into - maybe very high quality - but modernism.
Do you think it's real to grow together?
M. F.: Yes, this is an absolute reality. In January of this year, I handed it over - scaffolding was removed from 750 thousand square meters of residential buildings.
In Sochi?
M. F.: Not only in Sochi, in Moscow there is a house on Marshal Rybalko Street. I assure you, this is the embodiment of the 2001 style that I came up with thirty years ago.
Do you feel this as the embodiment of your painting?
M. F.: Yes, yes … I don't see the difference.
Believe it or not, I graduated from the Academy, came up with a concept and after that I took a brush and watercolor for the first time. I did not write at the Academy or at the art school. And if I wrote, it’s impossible to look at what I was doing then.
*** the exhibition is open until July 27 (opening hours)
