In March, the Moscow City Duma Commission on Monumental Art supported the proposal to move the Gogol monument by sculptor Andreev back to the boulevard. Architect Vladimir Berezin reacted to this idea with an alternative project; we publish the project and the article of the author.
Gogol 3 Chairman. Let's demolish Dzerzhinsky! Well, it's from the Lubyanka! … Who agrees"? Who is "Against"? “Abstained”? … Adopted unanimously! Those present. (Stormy applause.)
Chairman. It seems to us that air conditioners spoil the image of Moscow. We suggest removing them from the facades of houses. Who agrees"? Who is "Against"? “Abstained”? … Adopted unanimously!
Those present. (Stormy applause.)
Chairman. (aside) What else is there to do? Exactly! (Aloud) I propose to remove the old Gogol from the boulevard, and put an even older one from the yard in his place. AND? What do you say to that? Who agrees"? Who is "Against"? Maybe someone "Abstained"? … Accepted!
Those present. (Stormy applause.) ***
Here I am not going to judge those who make the decision. Moreover, strictly speaking, no decision has been made yet. So, there is talk, but what will come of it all is not yet known. It is only known that castling by the Gogols is quite possible. Is it good? Poorly? Let's just look at three possible scenarios. Immediately, for the sake of brevity of the further presentation, let us define the "conventional notation". Gogol No. 1 - a monument to N. V. Gogol, created for the centenary of the birth of the writer in 1909 (sculptor N. Andreev, architect F. Shekhtel). Gogol No. 2 is a monument in 1952 by the sculptor N. Tomsky (erected in honor of the centenary of Gogol's death).
Option 1
Nothing happens. The idea of moving the monument was heard and safely ignored. The gogols are standing in their places. This makes no one hot or cold (only Mr. Chairman can). They already got used to number 1 in a cozy courtyard near the house where the great Russian writer lived, and number 2 firmly staked out a place for itself on Gogolevsky Boulevard. This outcome of events is fraught with the least number of pitfalls, namely zero.
Option 2
The castling took place. Checkmate. It was then that our ship hit the reef. I must say right away that Option 2 is the worst of all. So, let's imagine that Gogol # 1 returned to his rightful place. The first thing to do with the second one? Putting it in the place of the first is stupid, not the scale, the wrong atmosphere. What to do with it? Put together with Felix Dzerzhinsky on the backdrops at the Central House of Artists? But what kind of myth is it that the “sad” Gogol is better than the “rainbow” one? Who said that? Nobody argues about the aesthetic value of Gogol No. 1, but, comrades, Tomsky's Gogol is no worse. Yes, he is different. But to be different does not mean to be worse. These monuments are antipodes: one is sitting, the other is standing; one gloomy, the other smiling; one introvert, another extrovert; one chamber, the other - urban (monumental). Let us dwell on the last difference between the two Gogols in more detail, because it is from it that the second big question arises.
The fact is that Gogol No. 1 - for all its indisputable advantages - is a chamber monument. Moreover, this is not a "round" sculpture, but a sculpture of 180 degrees - it is for this sector of the circle that its aesthetic qualities are designed. Yes, every degree of this semicircle of the "front" part of the monument is a genius. But, excuse me, what's behind? There is nothing, a lump of stone, something shapeless. Now, when he is peacefully sitting at his house-museum, all its disadvantages are simply not visible. Yes, you can walk around the monument, but the main action takes place in the cherished 180 degrees.
Now let's mentally transfer it to the boulevard. Urban embarrassment - no more, no less. Small, chamber Gogol is lost on the scale of Arbat Square. Where is he? Hey? People on Gogolevsky Boulevard are going to the devil knows what - to some lump on the pedestal of the great Shekhtel. Everything is violated - the environment, the scale, and the composition. By doing so, we will simply “kill” N. Andreev's work of art by the environment (and not physically, as experts are now worried about, but aesthetically). It turns out, Mr. Chairman, monuments are not checkers to move around the city so easily. Everything is much more complicated here.
In this sense, Gogol No. 2 is a genius. It may be inferior to the first in the quality of the sculpture itself, in idea and composition, but in terms of architectural and urban planning qualities, it is head and shoulders above its predecessor. Let's start with the fact that under I. V. Stalin knew how to work, and they were far from being fools. The sense of place, proportions, viewpoints, co-scale was at the highest level. Gogol No. 2, despite all the reproaches, is much more harmonious at the head of the boulevard than the first. His pose, scale (both of the sculpture itself and of the pedestal) - everything is perfectly combined with the context. And the inscription on the pedestal "To the great Russian artist of the word Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol from the government of the Soviet Union"! After all, this is a historical document (and, by the way, even here two monuments remain antipodes - compare with the laconic "Gogol" on the first).
So, to summarize, the idea of "restoring historical justice" is as absurd as restoring a clone of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Time has changed, the environment is not the same, the scale has changed. Let's leave everything as it is. Or not?
Option 3
Every problem has a solution. If we can consider the second option with the “-” sign, and the first one as “=” or “0”, then it is logical to assume that option 3 is “+”, a way out of the current situation. Option 3 is an opportunity to do something more, to step further, to rethink Gogol. Without option 3, the others have no meaning: both the initiative and the energy expended by people applying for the removal of the monument, if option 1 comes true; and simply the destruction of both monuments in case of option 2. Option 3 - there is, on the one hand, the unification of the other two, and, on the other, something more. Without further ado, let's get down to business.
I propose to leave Gogol No. 2 in its place, and behind him (back to back) place Gogol No. 1, exactly along the axis of the boulevard. A decorative wall (presumably made of stainless steel) is installed between the monuments. All!
Of course, the Chairman and the company will be against and even outraged, but let me say a few words in their defense. In the beginning, I will express purely architectural and urban planning considerations, then I will move on to questions of a philosophical and ethical sense.
- The resulting "monument" will become even more scaled to the place. Now this is a multidimensional installation - henceforth I will call Option 3 an installation - equally oriented towards both the city and the boulevard. Gogol No. 2, as before, "grins" in the direction of Arbat Square. As mentioned above, it fits perfectly into the environment. The decorative wall behind it only gives it significance and makes it stand out from the dense vegetation of the boulevard. Gogol No. 1 is again in its historical place (!), Only turned 180 degrees (here the famous myth about turning in a coffin comes to mind) towards the boulevard with its “best” side. The decorative wall not only hides the unsightly rear part No. 1, but also "protects" the intimacy of the monument from the aggressive urban environment. Everything fell into place: the "pretentious" Gogol No. 2 faces the pretentious city, and the "quiet" Gogol No. 1 faces the quiet boulevard.
- This installation rethinks two things: a) approach to the solution of monuments; b) approach to solving boulevards. The classic boulevard is a pedestrian road framed by trees on both sides, leading from conditional point A to conditional point B. Usually, the importance of these points is emphasized by a monument. Only now, almost always, a person goes from the back of one monument to the back of another monument. He does not understand who he is going to, all the way seeing only the back of the sculpture. Is it Timiryazev? Shukhov? Gogol? In one word - "A man in a jacket." Gogolevsky, Tverskoy, Sretensky, Passion, etc.boulevards in Moscow alone are arranged in the way described above. In our case, people walk along Gogolevsky Boulevard to Gogol, seeing him in person all the way (about 400 meters from the turn of the boulevard).
- This raises a pertinent question: “Is it ethical? Do this with the monument to the great Russian writer! " I answer: this installation correctly and as accurately and fully reflects the spirit of N. V. Gogol. With any other writer, such a decision would be simply idiotic and inappropriate. This will not work for Turgenev. But with Gogol - a completely different matter. What is Gogol? He is a metaphysician and a mystic, while a lyricist and satirist. A person endowed with an excellent sense of humor and an equally subtle sense of compassion. Patriot. He is unique. He combined the incongruous, and it was from this split, split of personality that he drew his images. Gogol is absurd, but his absurdity, taken to the extreme, gives rise to meaning. Oddly enough, but in the current situation, both monuments are too far from each other. Now, their location is simply absurd. But with their gradual convergence, the energy charge begins to increase, as when electric cathodes and anodes come closer together. Finally, the degree of absurdity reaches its climax when they are combined, and the absurd turns into meaning, into a kind of dada. Gogol 3 is a metaphysical monument to Gogol that exists only in our imagination, possible only if there are two others. Alone, # 1 and # 2 are "insufficient" halves to each other, antipodes, arguing over who is the best. Gogol 3 unites opposites, their pros and cons. Better or worse no longer exists. The dispute was settled, a consensus was found.
PS
Chairman. So with this everything is clear … Only now … How to say … What to do with the park near the house-museum? Should a fountain be put in place of the monument?
Those present. (Mute scene). *** Editorial opinion may not reflect the views of the author.
