Archi.ru:
How do you define the chronological boundaries of modernism? Is it over or will it last forever?
Elena Gonzalez:
- There is some confusion with the chronology. The fact is that in the European tradition, modernity (or modernism) begins its countdown from the beginning of the 20th century. For art historians, the term includes both avant-garde and later art. In the terminology adopted by architects in Russia, avant-garde and modernism designate different periods. With regard to Russia, modernism is the post-war period, from the 1955 decree "On the elimination of excesses in design and construction" until it was replaced by "postmodernism" in the mid-eighties. Did modernism end as a global project? Yes, I think so. Did it end as a type of thinking? In my opinion, no.
Are there any local features of Soviet (Russian?) Modernism? What buildings would you call significant or at least indicative?
- The features of Russian modernism are associated with the planned state economy, that is, with the features of the social system. This applies to both the scale of construction, and the lack of alternative "style". That is, ideology determines aesthetics, and everything that goes beyond the accepted one is considered creative dissidence and is marginalized. Maybe that's why we have the worst hangover and a massive dislike for this period, even among professionals. Which, of course, is very sad, because beautiful examples of modernist architecture remain underestimated - from the Palace of the Pioneers to the residential complexes of Meerson and his brigade.
Modernism is considered to be a global international style: it destroys identity rather than pursues it. Or has something changed?
- I had an interesting conversation on this topic with Maxim Atayants. I have always doubted the term "international style" when applied to modernism. In my opinion, the Empire was no less international - from Madrid to St. Petersburg. Baroque - northern and southern, with local characteristics, but also international. What, then, is the meaning of the term? Maxim connected it with the reaction to the development and establishment in the 19th century of local vernaculars who tried to develop into national styles. In the era of industrialization, these attempts were doomed, and the declaration of the international style confirmed this doom. In my opinion, a very convincing proposition.
I agree, more than convincing. But then another question: the theme of the current "Architecture" combines the avant-garde and the search for identity - it turns out that we are dealing with another attempt to develop a local vernacular. Or not?
- The avant-garde pretends not only to be international, but to be super-cosmic. It's nice, of course, that our native aspens gave us Tsiolkovsky and the willlyans, who “on the eve” - “Another month, a year, or two, but I believe: the Germans will be bewilderedly watching Russian flags fluttering in the sky in Berlin, and the Turkish Sultan will wait for the day, when, behind the pitifully faded crescents, the Russian shield will shine over the gates of Constantinople! " © Mayakovsky. One can see in this nationally identical, but the victory over Constantinople did not limit the pathos, the goal was Victory over the Sun. Consider the Avant-garde a purely Russian artistic phenomenon? I am not an expert on this period, but in the theme set by the curators I see rather a worldview opposition of the avant-garde and vernacular than their continuity.
In your opinion, can the study of the heritage of modernism help "revive the tradition", generally revive something - or is it a purely academic pursuit, essentially hermetic and valuable in itself? And if so, how could it have happened?
- I have never considered styles as a tradition, although I fully admit such a view. For me, it is rather a type of design thinking, expressed in certain forms and constructions. Roughly speaking, “modernists” can be found in any style and at any time; it is another matter whether they form, as they say now, the agenda. The modernist type of consciousness is close to me, I consider it the most honest and productive, and therefore promising. Now it is important to show how the ideology of modernism is being transformed, what new connections and relationships arise between "ethics and aesthetics." It is not for nothing that the curators of the Venice Biennale turn to this topic over and over again.
What can the audience expect from your exhibition, what is its main meaning?
- Our project on Zodchestvo is a part of a large Sovmod project launched a year ago. I would like to emphasize that this is a collective work, a working group - Yulia Zinkevich, Sergey Nebotov, Maria Troshina, graduate students of the Moscow Architectural Institute Mikhail Knyazev, Maria Serova, Andrey Stenyushkin (from their group https://vk.com/sovmod, in fact, our project began). Special thanks to experts and assistants Olga Kazakova and Denis Romodin, as well as photographers Yuri Palmin and Alexei Naroditsky.
Sovmod is a study of the modernist heritage of Russia in the period 1955-1985. Responding to the theme of Architecture, we show how a new human community was formed by architectural means. Unification of the architectural landscape with typical series of houses, schools, clubs, etc. created an environment that is unified and recognizable by a huge number of fellow citizens.
The exhibition announcing the project at Zodchestvo turns out to be somewhat jubilee: the “sharp criticism of the practice of decoration” at the All-Union Meeting of Builders fell on December 1954.
At the exhibition, we will present the Sovmod website, which gives a very impressive picture of this landscape, as well as representing the unique in the typical.
Who is your audience, who are you addressing?
- Good question. It would seem that "Zodchestvo" is a professional festival, and the issues discussed at it are primarily addressed to prof. audience. But the work on the project and the website in particular showed that the theme of the Soviet heritage in architecture worries many people - simply because they live in this environment, it has largely shaped them. This applies not only to the older generation, nostalgic or denying this architecture, but also to very young people who find their reasons and demonstrate their reflection on the modernist experience. And this is the most interesting - including as an answer about the prospects of modernism.
Do you think it is right to look for identity and uniqueness now, or it might be more logical to focus on the quality of life? Or, on the contrary, on common human problems, forgetting about the originality?
- How can the quality of life contradict these searches? The quality of life presupposes the maximum satisfaction of the needs of the living. But the needs are determined already within certain local groups, and here we are talking about the competent study of the requests of these groups and the way of responding to these requests. In Soviet modernism, the answer was purely decorative - at the level of introducing national patterns. Of course, seismicity and other technical characteristics were taken into account. That is, locality was a geographical and ethnic (again at the level of patterns) concept. Other - social, religious, ideological localities in the understanding of the "single Soviet people" did not exist, and the quality of life was represented as a single set of minimum benefits, which should have been expanded with each five-year plan. Typically, this quality was measured in square meters. I do not believe that a full-fledged restoration of this approach is possible today, although there is a powerful inertia in industrial housing construction on the one hand, and attempts to return to a "planned economy" at the level of monopolies, on the other.
