Tony Fretton visited Moscow in July this year at the invitation of the Strelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design: he conducted the Urban Development - London Experience workshop and took part in the Between Home and Office round table.
Archi.ru:
- When you talk about historical buildings, you use the term "cultural artifact", meaning that they are multi-layered "fruits" of the past. In this sense, your buildings and those of your colleagues are the “fruits” of the culture of the past and the present. But the language of your architecture is still the language of modernism. It turns out that modernism is still relevant?
Tony Fretton:
- Yes, absolutely. The modern movement in architecture was as significant as the Renaissance, and it still influences the thinking of architects and planners, but we have forgotten about its great achievements and what it replaced. Before modernism, the dominant architectural style was classicism in the version of Beaux-Arts, in which several centuries of class differences were laid. The worker's home was simple and utilitarian, while the rich man's home was decorated like a wedding cake. The government building looked like a palazzo, and the factory looked like a barn. The architects of the modern movement created an abstract functional architecture that suited the new democratic society and in which there were no class differences - this is a remarkable achievement. And some of the most important buildings of early modernism are located here in Russia - the Melnikov house and his workers' clubs, the commune house of the Narkomfin Ginzburg.
Modernist buildings are not always held in high esteem because they lack traditional, familiar content. London, where I spend part of my time, is full of this familiar meaning, and therefore it is both wonderful and “stuffy”. In Rotterdam, the completely modernist city where I live the rest of the time, the absence of these familiar meanings gives a kind of freedom. As a designer, I am interested in both familiar and abstract shapes.
If we take modernism in a broad sense, which includes painting, literature and music - along with architecture, we see that Picasso, James Joyce, Stravinsky and Le Corbusier freely used motifs from the past combined with the new possibilities of modernism to create works corresponding to the current situation. As a modernist architect, it seems to me that this is possible even now - as can be seen in such buildings of mine as the London Red House, the British Embassy in Warsaw and the Danish Museum Fuglsang - and that this is how you can work honestly, with attention to the needs of society. and without any postmodern irony.
You have now answered my next question - about what it is like for people to "come into contact" with the buildings of modernism. For example, in Russia one can hear the opinion about the works of David Chipperfield that they remind of late Soviet times - and this is in a sense true, since we have buildings of the 1970s that really look …
- How are the buildings of David Chipperfield?
Yes
- David, my friend, in Moscow they say that your works are Soviet in style! If I were in his place, I would be flattered. The buildings of this period seem very interesting to me, especially the Moscow building of the Yuri Platonov Academy of Sciences. If you look from the outside, a lot of interesting events took place in the Soviet space, which gave strength to adherents of "left" views in the rest of the world. And now we are in a situation where the dominance of economic liberalism is not questioned, and its greed, individualism and indifference to social problems are visible in the image of the built environment in Russia and in the West.
As an already significant and growing number of people, in the face of this situation, I must show - in interviews and by other means - that I am aware of the political situation and the need to develop alternative paths of development.
Of course, no one believes that an architect should not be socially responsible. But have you noticed that now something like this social responsibility has become fashionable, everyone has to work in developing countries, and so on?
- I think this is more a specific trend than a fashion; of course, my London students are becoming more and more "social". But I myself have no experience of working in developing countries, only in the UK (which can sometimes resemble a developing country) and Northern Europe.
You work in Britain, but also many of your projects have been implemented in the Netherlands. How did it happen?
- At that time, Holland experimented with different points of view and was interested in foreign architects - a bit like a resort romance with a hot Italian, or, in my case, a cool Englishman [play on words: cool (English) simultaneously means "cool" and "cool" - approx. ed]. The social structure in England and Holland is practically the same. Despite the current aggressively conservative regimes in both countries, it is fundamentally social-democratic in both countries.
In the context of local Dutch peculiarities, our buildings there probably seem a little strange, but a little strange fragments are even good for the city.
- I remember David Adjaye at the opening of his
The Skolkovo School of Management said how much he enjoyed working in Russia and that he would like to build something else here. But this building is still the only building of a major foreign architect in Russia.
- I am sure that it was said completely disinterestedly and was in no way aimed at promoting his career … Regarding the second part of the question, there are very good architects in Russia - no worse than in any other country in the world, so I'm not sure that many foreign architects are required here.
And you say that you and Ajaye are friends?
- Yes, David and I are friends. He calls me the London architectural godfather, so I think I can tease him a little too.
Your work and his - from completely different parts of the spectrum …
- David's work belongs to the polychrome part of the spectrum …
They say that I influenced younger architects, but still each of us has our own voice and we respect each other.
Seen from the outside, it seems that a very strong group of modernist architects is working in Britain now - stronger than in Germany, for example - you, David Chipperfield, Keith Williams, Terry Pawson …
Add to this list Sergison Bates, Steven Taylor, Jonathan Woolf, Ian Ritchie and many more. It was amazing to suddenly discover that the world is interested in our work, because architectural practice in the UK can be like paddling against a strong current. This is why Chipperfield, Sterling, Foster, Rogers and I were forced to work in other countries. And it’s very nice to hear that we are forming a movement. Recognition of merit is pleasant, but responsibility must not be forgotten. Therefore, having arrived in Russia, I will try to talk about the possibilities of ideas - in the form of an open proposal, and not imposing a style position.
On the topic of working in England: in your interviews you and David Chipperfield criticize British attitudes towards architects, architecture, design process, etc. Why? Looking from Russia, it often seems that Europe is a paradise for architects
- Architects should point out to politicians and bureaucrats where and how things can be improved. I admire David because he is completely straightforward. Other architects in his position would be diplomatic, and “star” architects say only what their interlocutor wants to hear. David is an extremely valuable critic and his work is always very good. I learned a lot from their example, and I give my students an assignment: to study his work. He is an excellent designer, builds very well, understands materials very well and also understands how to create a large amount of high quality work.
We need a lot of different architects - like David, with more "manufacturing capacity", and like me, with fewer deep projects. In doing so, we must take care not only of the present moment, educating the next generation of architects and helping them to start their independent careers.
Therefore, London is now a fortunate but also risky situation that we must continue to criticize. In Moscow, the situation looks much more difficult. If I can speak at all, greed and ignorance are destroying Moscow in the same way they destroyed London. Two days ago, Mikhail Khazanov showed me his building for the government of the Moscow region. At some point, the customers decided that they could do with the glazed inner walls of the atrium, and not do the atrium itself - for the sake of saving money. But Khazanov convinced them that the building would look terrible without the atrium, and it was nevertheless erected. The architect was absolutely right in defending this element of the project, because in the next decades people will get used to the idea of free communication in this public space, and it will become clear that Mikhail Khazanov was ahead of his time. Architects must be intractable, must refuse to compromise, because often they are the only ones who contribute to progress by such actions. The constructivists have shown this very clearly.
“That's true, but their buildings are in very bad shape right now, as you know
- This is a tragedy, it is monstrous, because their buildings were extremely important for the development of European modernism, just as important as those of Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe.
It is the cultural duty of Russia and Europe to restore these monuments and take care of them on a scientific basis. Market forces cannot do this. Now that the scope of Thatcher's experiment is fully visible, the UK is gradually realizing that blind faith in the power of the market has not created a sustainable society or a sustainable city, and that thoughtful, “cultural” planning is necessary. Moscow developers should think about what city they will leave to their children and grandchildren.
“I'm afraid they're just going to send their grandchildren to the States …
- … or London.
“Or London, where many of them have already settled. But let us continue the theme of the younger generation: you have extensive experience as a teacher; you have also come to Moscow as a teacher. Have your teaching methods changed over time?
- I think, yes, I cannot say exactly how, because it was an evolutionary process. I am interested in the continuous existence of old ideas in modern society. I do not mean history, but long-established working methods that remain relevant today. Also, in my experience, the actual architecture students have not changed much. They remain "instinctive" humanists who think about the problems of society. Therefore, I am confident in the current young generation - both the students of the London Kass School, where I now teach, and the students of my workshop here at the Strelka Institute.
What advice do you give your students when they finish their studies?
- I try to help them with advice “in total” until I receive my diploma. I think the current situation requires the collaboration of professionals with different points of view, as in the development of open source computer programs. Like many other educators, I recognize that students can contribute to architectural theory. I teach students how to understand the value of their ideas and how to put them into practice. I can be accused of accepting their thoughts uncritically, but this is a small price to pay for instilling self-confidence in young architects along with a sense of social responsibility.
