Preservation
Archi.ru:
What, in your opinion, is the reason for the growing interest in preserving the heritage of the avant-garde?
Irina Korobyina:
- It seems that Russia has finally come to realize the value of the Soviet architectural avant-garde, and the fact that we are rapidly losing it.
How significant do you think is the support of the Ministry of Culture in this area? What is the fundamental difference between the state approach to conservation and adaptation and public cultural initiatives?
- The state approach ensures a high level of decision-making. The state machine works slowly, selectively, but surely - at the level of legislation, issuing documents with fateful decisions that guarantee the future and their consistent implementation at the expense of the state budget. Public movements are brighter, more dynamic, but develop more in the pr-field.
The exhibition, which is a special project of the Ministry of Culture of Russia, is designed to identify and designate the vector of state policy aimed at preserving the constructivist heritage and its introduction into the world cultural turnover.
In the context of a review of the monuments of the Soviet architectural avant-garde not only in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but throughout Russia, five specific examples of monuments supported by the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation will be presented in detail: this is the House of K. S. Melnikov in Krivoarbatsky lane in Moscow (1927–1929), Kitchen Factory named after Maslennikov in Samara (1932), Garage for trucks on Novoryazanskaya Street in Moscow (1929–1931), Drama Theater in Rostov - on - Don (1930– 1935) and the White Tower in Yekaterinburg (1928-1931).
Naturally, the selected examples do not limit the scope of support provided by the Ministry of Culture to the monuments of the avant-garde, they relate to the practice of recent years and most clearly demonstrate the various approaches to solving the problems of the constructivist heritage and the various tools with which it is possible to solve them.
Are you talking about a large-scale state program to support the preservation of avant-garde objects?
- I hope it matures in the depths of the offices. In the absence of a special program, in fact, avant-garde monuments become the subject of the responsibility of the owners, more precisely, the users, who are entrusted with security obligations. A review of the Russian experience shows that there are an absolute majority of such monuments.
Identity and relevance
To what extent is the theme of the architectural avant-garde specific for Russia?
- When we talk about Russian architecture with our compatriots, we always mean ancient Russian churches, chambers and chambers. Foreigners, when discussing Russian architecture, mean constructivism. The whole world recognizes the Soviet avant-garde as the main contribution of Russia to the world culture of the 20th century. For me, this is an unconditional sign of Russian identity.
How do the ideas and solutions presented at the exhibition fit into the global context?
- The exhibition presents five approaches to solving the most difficult problem of saving avant-garde monuments, which characterize the activities of the Ministry of Culture of Russia in this direction in recent years: financing the restoration of the monument without changing its function by allocating targeted funds from the federal budget (theater in Rostov-on-Don), museumification of the monument with subsequent scientific restoration aimed at accurately preserving the memorial setting (Melnikov House in Moscow), using the monument for a new cultural function with an appropriate adaptation (a kitchen factory in Samara), using the monument for a new function, implying the regeneration of the entire adjacent territory (garage on Novoryazanskaya street in Moscow), support for the social and cultural activities of the local community, aimed at saving the monument, by allocating a targeted grant (White Tower in Yekaterinburg).
All these approaches take place in world practice. It can be noted that in Europe the approach that presupposes the adaptation of monuments to a new cultural function is preferred.
Is it possible, and by what methods, to bridge the gap between the high appraisal of the objects of the architectural avant-garde by specialists and the mass consciousness, which does not find “beautiful” in this architecture?
- Actually, this exhibition is an example of one such method. I think the most direct ways of turning the "mass consciousness" towards this architecture are just exhibitions, books, films, lectures, excursions … At one time we made about ten TV films dedicated to the Soviet architectural avant-garde and even released the disc "Projections Avant-garde ", which is still in great demand, and the further - the more. During the editing, they were horrified at the depressiveness of the modern video sequence. This prompted us to grope and expose the nerve of this architecture - its energy, innovativeness, but, of course, its focus on solving social, that is, universal human problems. So the main idea of the films crystallized, which needed to be expressed in simple human language. Then, in fact, the understanding came that when addressing a non-professional viewer, you need to tell vivid, exciting stories that will not only be remembered, but will not be released over time.
How relevant is the language of avant-garde architects today?
- For me, it is always relevant, precisely because the ideology of the avant-garde movement was focused not on the search for linguistic features, but on the creation of new meanings and on the solution of common human problems in the organization of living space - then it was an innovative approach, today it is the only one that has the right to unconditional existence, in my opinion.
Is it possible to use the techniques and experience of the past with the modern adaptation and reconstruction of objects?
- Although very few monuments of the Soviet avant-garde have a federal status of protection, I think that when working with the avant-garde heritage, we should rather talk not about reconstruction, but about scientific restoration. Our German colleagues, in particular, Wilfred Brenne and Anke Zalivako, have developed restoration techniques using not only the techniques and experience of the past, but also authentic materials. By the way, they have published an excellent publication, one of the volumes of which is devoted to research and ideas for the restoration of the House of People's Commissariat for Finance, which has been in distress for many years.
Practical aspects
What option for preserving the monuments of the avant-garde - "museumification" or adaptation - seems to you the most promising? What are the features and advantages of both approaches?
- It all depends on the specifics. Museumification is possible when the object has a suitable purpose, a vivid legend and good preservation. An example is the Melnikov House, which, not only by the genius of the architectural solution, but also by its history, by the preservation of the memorial setting, and finally, by its role in the work and in the fate of the great architect, is a museum in its essence. The state status of this museum is necessary in order to carry out the scientific restoration of the monument and provide it with a guaranteed and worthy future. But how to museumize, for example, a kitchen factory in Samara? And why create a memorial kitchen? Adaptation to a new cultural function is appropriate here. By the decision of the Ministry of Culture, this monument will be adapted for the activities of the Samara branch of the NCCA. Thus, his reincarnation will take place - he will receive a second life in a new quality, acquire a new meaning of existence, which, ultimately, will also provide a guaranteed future for the monument.
Both examples will be presented at the exhibition, since they demonstrate different approaches in the activities of the Ministry of Culture of Russia aimed at saving the monuments of the avant-garde.
To what extent are the buildings of the avant-garde suitable for museum and exhibition functions? What to do with residential buildings?
- Industrial and technical buildings of the avant-garde, such as factories, factories, hangars, depots, garages, etc. are ideal for museum and exhibition functions. The point is not only that these large-span spaces, built with meager and precise means, organically absorb any expositions. They were designed when new technical and transport vehicles, hitherto unseen, only appeared in the life of those years. Architects, admiring the "miracles of technology", willingly or unwillingly designed spaces for admiring them, and not just for the implementation of the necessary production processes. That is, it is quite likely that this architecture was originally based on some kind of exposition function.
Residential buildings need to be put in order and live in them, which is brilliantly proved by the experience of the Bauhaus in Dessau, the restoration of residential communities of Bruno Taut in Berlin, residential buildings and the kindergarten of Giuseppe Terragni in Como and many other examples.
As previous experience shows, many problems of preserving the cultural heritage of the avant-garde are related to property issues. What are the ways to solve these problems? Is it possible to simplify the settlement of such issues?
- The problems of preserving any heritage, not only the avant-garde, are always associated with property issues. I think the key to their solution is the concept of responsibility for the state of the monument, and for ensuring guarantees of its preservation and maintenance in the future. It is no coincidence that, according to the law, the owner is obliged to take on the security obligations prescribed by the relevant authorities. If he does not cope with them, then, after warnings, accompanied by fines, he is deprived of the right to property. I do not think that this principle can be simplified or revised, since any other logic is crafty and fraught with the threat of a possible loss of the monument.
What is the current status of the garage on Novoryazanskaya? How and in what time frame is it planned to start the implementation of the cultural project?
- The garage, built by the architect K. S. Melnikov and engineer V. G. Shukhov on Novoryazanskaya Street in Moscow, is a local monument and until recently served as a transport repair base. The question of its adaptation to cultural functions should be addressed to the copyright holder - the Moscow government.
Nevertheless, we considered it necessary to include it in the exposition, since both the presidential apparatus, the Ministry of Culture of Russia, and the Moscow government issued a number of documents supporting the idea of creating a Center of the Soviet Architectural Avant-garde in it, which will not only save the outstanding monument, but also serve to regenerate a depressed area today, by analogy with the South Bank of the Thames, whose dysfunctional territory flourished after the transformation of an abandoned power plant into the legendary Tate Modern.
Do you plan to work with the population and involve local residents from nearby constructivist residential buildings in the Shabolovsky cluster project?
- The idea of creating the Shabolovskiy cluster was proposed by the participants of the conference held by the Museum of Architecture this year. Inhabitants of the Shabolovsky district also took part in the public discussion within the framework of the conference. As far as we know, they take a rather active position - regardless of whether it is planned to attract them or not.
