A series of interviews with Archi.ru with foreign architectural publicists received its logical continuation in conversations with domestic critics - more precisely, with those whom we consider to be critics, although they themselves may not call themselves that. The aim of the project is to understand what is happening now in the field of architectural criticism in Russia, and whether this activity has any meaning here.
Archi.ru:
- Do you consider yourself an architectural critic, and why?
A: I am sure that criticism belongs to the process to which it is dedicated, is a part of it. But I always wanted to take a closer position to journalism and just talk about current events. What is also important: we have an unusually small amount of intellectual architectural space, perhaps even completely absent. Someone said that we have architects, but no architecture. Then we can say that we have critics, but no criticism.
F: I usually introduce myself: an architect by education, a journalist by occupation. Although this spring [spring 2013] I was called both a historian and an activist, in general it turned out to be some kind of universal. On the first of September [2013], I told the students of MARSH that one of the goals of our classes was my release from the role of interpreter, which prevents me from doing architecture from the standpoint of a researcher and critic.
You mean: translate from their "bird" language into human?
F: This is almost literal what the editor told me in my first job as a journalist.
If you look back at the past, then intellectual discourse in architecture existed in the era of the avant-garde of the 1920s-30s, and - albeit within the framework of ideology - in Stalin's time. And under Khrushchev, architects pondered their professional life and creative degradation associated with the diktat of the building complex. But why is this discourse now absent? Logically, just as this field was cleaned out in the early 1990s, new phenomena naturally had to sprout there. You just need to water the soil or even throw grains into it - to give an incentive, and it would seem that for people who understand the specifics of the moment, this is quite a worthy and interesting occupation
F: That's just the "material" of watering, it seems in our situation - not text. I have a feeling that educational activities are more relevant now.
So now we need to start from scratch?
A: I wrote a diploma for the magazine "Contemporary Architecture" (published in 1926-1930), this is a wonderful example of criticism and architectural thought at the same time. Since the magazine was published by architects, there was a perfect combination: they were both critics and demonstrated the intellectual process, the absence of which we now complained about. An important part of this process is one or more ideas that inspire architects, discussions about what is good and what is bad, what architects work for. We had a special lesson with the students at MARCH School, where we discussed the Manifesto of Futuristic Architecture, which was written by Antonio Sant'Elia in 1914, and one of the last texts designated as a manifesto - The Parametric Manifesto by Patrick Schumacher (2008). On the one hand, these texts are somewhat similar: in both, a certain idea of the past, present and future of architecture is declared, the authors define what is right and what is wrong. But at the same time, the rhetoric is different: Sant'Elia calls the ideological opponents the last words, and Schumacher is very restrained. In any case, the presence of a discussion seems to me an important condition for the existence of criticism. Otherwise, what should the critic be talking about? If about the supporting structures used in the building, then he should be called an engineering critic.
However, there is a paradox: architects want to be written about their projects, but they do not strive to read about architecture in general and about the work of colleagues. There is a certain egocentricity here, fixation on oneself and a reluctance to go beyond the production processes in one's bureau
A: The desire to publish projects is a purely symbolic need and functionally unreasonable attraction, I came to this conclusion. This idea of mine is supported by the almost complete absence of architectural media in our country. In fact, there is no need for these publications.
F: I must say that scientific architectural research presented at some readings in the RAASN is also often devoid of the intellectual value that criticism should have in our country. Basically, these are practical calculations, when architects make their observations and try to justify them, for example, mathematically, another option is art history descriptions without exhaust.
We have a society - from practitioners to theorists - which is quite satisfied with such statements
A: Olga Aleksakova from BUROMOSCOW very rightly noted that there are, in principle, very few architects in Russia, so some laws of physics obviously work here, and there is simply no critical mass of people who want to discuss something or even get punched in the face for your idea. If there are ten of them, then it is enough for them to just talk about it among themselves once. They don't need magazines, no discussion, no criticism. But if there are 1000 of them, then there would be a need for an intellectual and media space, people would be needed who talk about this space, broadcast new ideas - these are all functions of criticism.
Both of you teach at MARCH school [the course “Architecture and Culture of Communications” of the “Professional Practice” module], communicate with the younger generation: is there a positive trend, is the number of active architects growing, or is everything standing still? Are there any people willing to take up criticism?
F: Sometimes students ask me about work, someone tries to write for magazines. But they have a very specific view of journalism as an escape from design, associated with trade-offs and the rest of the servile side of the profession. The second point is related to what is happening with journalism in general: now journalists of very different specializations combine writing with curating exhibitions, giving lectures, etc.
A: This second point explains why we write less. For criticism, existence in the media space is important, but not essential, this is only one of the possibilities. But the space of journalism as a whole is terribly shrinking, tense - because of censorship, political problems. All this for the most part does not concern architecture, but still this is a single space.
And how then to assess such great popularity of Grigory Revzin? All this difficult situation does not bother him at all
A: Of course, it is better to ask him about this himself, but, according to my observations, it also bothers him: it is clear that Revzin is constantly expanding the scope of his activities - he has published a series of texts about museums, many general political texts. On the other hand, the CitizenK magazine was closed, Ogonyok ceased to be so sharp. This field is also compressed.
F: If we are talking about the processes in which criticism is included, then Grigory Revzin is closer to the art history process. As a person who graduated from the history department of Moscow State University and taught there, he views architecture as a part of art history.
I mentioned Grigory Revzin as an example of a person who, thanks to his work as a critic, has acquired the authority of an expert and now himself influences the situation, which he previously only analyzed and assessed. This real example should in theory serve as an incentive for the emergence of new figures claiming a similar status and role
A: I think that many people like Abramovich's yacht, but not everyone wants to become one. Someone arouses interest, respect, the thought arises that his fate is enviable (although here it is still possible to argue), then you have an idea of the possibility of becoming like him. But one dream is not enough, there should also be tools for its realization. The “entry points” on the path of its realization should be in close proximity to you, so that you can move further along this path. Now this is not the case in the field of architectural criticism.
Why don't we even have young architectural bloggers?
F: Anatoly Mikhailovich Belov used to do this, which led him to the Project Russia magazine.
A: It seems to me that this is the same story about the poverty of space. Strelka alone is not enough to change the current situation, but if five more schools with different positions and interests appeared, it would be better.
Do we have enough students?
A: About that and speech. Although the state could help here if it was interested in creating this space. But we ourselves are doing it very badly. Evgeny Ass worked for 20 years at the Moscow Architectural Institute (besides, the difference in his approach to teaching there was always obvious), before the situation was ripe for creating his own architectural school. Nevertheless, it seems to me that Strelka - I am a fan of it, I confess - is an example of the fact that alternative institutions are very good.
So it can be considered a positive symptom? Because it seems to me that the creation of alternative places of study, the correct "tuning" of the brain already speaks of something good
A: The problem is that there are very few people and few opportunities. People need to eat and drink, build themselves professionally and socially. For this, there must be external and internal tools, and their appearance takes time. Even an underground, non-conformist process strongly depends on the quality of the environment, on the degree of its diversity and complexity. There must be an environment with which you can enter into dialogue and start arguing with it. And we have a viscous emptiness around us …
F: So our students at MARSH write essays - about the media, about society, about legislation, and in many works there is a complaint about the older generation: in their opinion, it is dull and vague. And they would like to start, as in Europe, in a space prepared with an enlightened customer.
If they write essays for you, wouldn't it be logical to publish their edition on the basis of MARSH? Even if we take only teachers, there are authors here: you yourself, Kirill Ass
A: I don't think this is necessary. When Strelka appeared, the Interni magazine was closed in the version that was published by Oleg Dyachenko's team at Independent Media, and in which I then worked. Some time later, I went to work for Strelka myself, and it seemed to me that such an institution is now more justified from a practical point of view, a form of the existence of an intellectual discussion space than the media. Because it turns out that such forms of organizing the process work, while the printed editions are stalled.
F: An important point for criticism is the process temperature. Belinsky wrote, and Aksakov answered him, etc. In the past, one of my classmates asked about my articles: "Why don't you say - is this good or bad?" But I want to talk, not label. Now here this ping-pong "opinion-reaction" at the text level is not triggered. In other forms - yes, sometimes it works, but not in print. For those who are older, who felt the relevance in the writing genre, perhaps this turn is perceived more difficult. We entered this area at a different stage. However, sometimes sitting down and writing about an interesting object, learning through its study a bunch of fascinating details from the life of mankind is a great pleasure. Recently it has been mainly provided to me by Project Baltia magazine. People have found a way to expand the space of conversation. But the team of the magazine also organizes exhibitions, organizes contests, brings lecturers, and Strelka would arrange its own special St. Petersburg, if the conjuncture allowed.
