- Your project successfully matches the declared theme of Architecture 2014: wooden architecture has been considered the embodiment of Russian identity since the 19th century, since the time of Ivan Zabelin, who called the forms of wooden Russian architecture the source of everything folk in Russian art. In addition, Bulgakov is recalled: "Holy Russia is a wooden country, poor and … dangerous" or, for example, "I walk through the wooden towns" of Gorodnitsky, you can cite a lot more. The country was indeed made of wood, and we still feel it differently. So, do you really consider the tree to be the basis of Russian identity?
- Certainly. Wood in Russia was not just the most accessible and convenient material for construction and the manufacture of household items. The tree was an object of worship, numerous rituals are associated with it: people came to the trees for treatment, pray, ask for protection and love. And despite the susceptibility to destructive fires, our ancestors rebuilt entire cities from wood, which, like a phoenix bird, rose from the ashes in a renewed form. Sergei Yesenin said this about the meaning of wood in Russian culture: "For Russians, everything is from a tree - this is the religion of our people's thought." I think that says it all.
Well, if so, then let's choose what is more Russian-identical: the pagan temple, which archaeologists tell us about, as well as books and films, Russian izba or wooden temple? Or wooden houses XIX century, the period of classicism and eclecticism, quietly dying now in cities and villages? What is more important for your topic, in the text of the project you are talking about cosmism, and about "all-unity", and about "dimensionality", so what kind of material is closer to you?
- I think it is impossible to prefer one thing. Each of the stages of the historical development of Russia was reflected in the newly formed types of architectural objects. And each of the types you mentioned reflects not only the spirit of the times and its needs, but also how skillfully the architectural traditions of our people adapt to social, political and cultural transformations.
Pagan temples are replaced in the process of Christianization by Orthodox churches and churches. On the example of the wooden architecture of the north, one can trace how the Byzantine canon is reinterpreted under the influence of pagan traditions, aesthetics, the attitude of the ancient Rusich, as well as the originality of the technique of working with material typical for him.
And how did the pagan traditions influence him, could you give examples?
- After the adoption of Christianity, a new type of religious building was formed, which had little in common with the Byzantine prototype. The Orthodox church, made in wood, adopted the hipped roof from pagan architecture. A peculiar understanding of ciborium by our ancestors made it possible to use both a hipped roof and a domed one. The hipped roof symbolically expressed Slavic mythopoetic, cosmological and aesthetic ideas. And there are enough examples of churches of this type, one of them is the Church of the Assumption from the village of Kuritsko (museum
Vitoslavlitsy), dating back to the XIV century.
Another example of such adaptation, as you noted, relates to the 18th and 19th centuries, when the classicism and baroque styles, which found their embodiment in stone in Europe, acquired a new aesthetics in wooden structures throughout the Russian Empire.
However, the authentic Russian hut has been preserved practically unchanged from time immemorial up to the XX century. It turns out that in the course of history, religion and many style trends have changed, which have affected the life of the city dweller and the privileged strata of society, but the dwelling of the common people has hardly been transformed.
Maybe this is due to the fact that it contains folk wisdom, passed down through the generations? Could it be that the hut is a kind of embodied microcosm, and any radical changes in its construction are fraught with disruption of harmony and interruption of ties with ancestors? We want to answer these questions with our exposition, if possible.
I would say that any dwelling is a microcosm, the way a person is arranged, which reflects the idea of space in his dwelling. But your words about your ancestors alarmed me: the ancestors were not shy to move from chicken huts to white ones, to liken their houses to stone city houses - which we find confirmation in many villages, where many houses of the eclectic period have survived, these houses with mezzanines, and standing along the roads are proof of this. Dwellings and temples were transformed, following both fashion and necessity, no one was afraid of breaking ties with their ancestors. What has changed?
- The architectural evolution that you illustrate can be associated with certain historical phenomena, such as the change of religion (10th century), the transition from religious to secular statehood (the era of Peter I), etc. The introduction of new architectural techniques was not the result of a natural transformation of the folk tradition of wooden architecture, but often of values imposed from outside. Therefore, when it comes to the preservation of traditions and respect for the accumulated knowledge of ancestors, one should rather mention a log hut, a tent-roofed temple, a house-purse and similar structures, which undoubtedly improved, but the tectonic and philosophical prototype of which was formed in the Russian north already before Christianization. Rus.
[Note. Y. Tarabarina: I will not comment on all the statements of this interview, so that the conversation does not turn into endless; it is quite obvious that we are here expressing different, and rather opposite points of view. It should be noted, however, that a significant majority of modern historians of Russian architecture consider the version of the national origin of hipped-roofed temples from wooden tents, the so-called "Zabelin's theory", obsolete, recognizing the stone Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye, built by an Italian (" Fryazin ") Petrok Small. This version was first expressed in an article by S. S. Pod'yapolskiy, recently it was examined in detail and confirmed by L. A. Belyaev and A. L. Batalov in the book “
Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye ". The discussion lasts more than a century and a half and it makes no sense to cite it here in detail, meanwhile, I - this is my personal judgment - I think that it will be useful for readers to know the latest and well-grounded versions. On my own, without going into details, I will just add that all the remnants of pagan temples are archaeological, and do not give grounds for conclusions about tents; the oldest reliably dated wooden church with a hipped roof was built later than the Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye. - Yu. T.]
In a word, so I thought that to the question about the specifics of identity, you would answer “all together”. Then it is different: how does the Russian wooden identity differ from the Finnish, Norwegian, Carpathian, or from the wooden ribbed vaults of English temples, that is, from another, for example, a European tree, if we also take into account that more ancient wooden monuments have survived in many countries? In other words, if the peculiarity of Russian architecture is that it is predominantly wooden, then what is the difference between Russian wooden architecture and others?
- One of the main characteristic features of Russian wooden architecture is the log structure. This is a very ancient technique, it belongs to the Dyakovo culture, which was spread on the territory of present-day Russia from the 7th BC. to the VI century. AD
In addition, Russian craftsmen treated wood not just as a building material, but as a material for art: all natural constructive techniques are at the same time decorative. There could not be a single decorative detail on the structure that did not carry any function. The severity of this architecture artistically expressed the maxim: "true greatness in simplicity, nature, in truth."
The Russianness of wooden architecture is laconicism and efficiency, but the main thing is proportionality. Proportion and measure were respected throughout. In ancient Russia, as you know, there was a special system of measures based on the average size of the human body, so the architecture was commensurate with a person. Modern architects have begun to strive for this relatively recently.
The principle of proportionality between details and the whole was also important, almost like in ancient Greek architecture. The application of the principle of geometric similarity gave integrity and a sense of unity to each village, although it was impossible to find a single identical house in it.
About proportions: well, it is difficult to distinguish oneself here, they all have them, where they are harmonious, where they are special. You said well about the Greeks, I would also add the Italians of the Renaissance, but a lot can be added if we talk about proportions … The hut in this list is rather a paradoxical element, because well, imagine a hut builder engaged in proportional calculations like, say, Frachenko di Giorgio Martini, who compared the plan of the basilica with the figure of a man. It immediately becomes obvious that the conversation about proportions here in relation to the hut is different
But about the frame, I would like to ask you separately: I was somehow sure that the frame is one of the most primitive, and therefore the most ancient forms of construction from wood (it is possible, however, that the palisade is older, since it is even simpler). Log structures have been known for a very long time, much earlier than the Dyakovsk culture, let's take for example
log crops XVIII–XVI century BC
And in general: isn't log cabins a typical construction method not only in Russian lands, but also in Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Carpathians, and the Alps? It seemed to me that wood construction, including the construction of cages, is a feature that relates more to natural conditions than to national identity, and belongs to a much larger region than Russia. So what is the peculiarity of the Russian tree?
- Of course, the log building technique is familiar to many peoples, and in different cultures it has been adapted in its own way. But in our case, it has become a generally accepted symbol of Russian culture, Russian traditional life, Russian material and spiritual values, it is for this reason that we associate timber-frame architecture with Russian identity, and its distinctive features have already been discussed above.
At some point XX century Russian architecture somehow defiantly turned away from wood, turning to panel construction. This can be explained by fire prevention, but there are also curious cases, only the ban on building from wood, which forced Shigeru Ban to make his pavilion in Gorky Park made of reinforced concrete, which is worth it. However, now, for ten to fifteen years now, wooden country houses are very popular again, as well as youth architectural festivals of wooden construction. How, in your opinion, will everything develop further?
- In my opinion, sooner or later, wood will regain its reputation as a very durable, affordable, environmentally friendly and relatively durable material. Our Scandinavian colleagues have been very actively reviving wooden construction in recent decades, and during this time many interesting projects from wood have appeared. An example is the implemented project of a nine-storey residential building in Stockholm by Wingårdhs Arkitekter. Projects made of wood and higher heights are being implemented now in the United States and Britain. I think that this experience, as well as modern technologies that make it possible to increase the fire resistance of wood, will force architects to take a fresh look at one of the oldest building materials and its enormous potential.
I think one of the tasks of the Zodchestvo festival is to give a new assessment of wooden architecture in particular and to illustrate some of its undoubted advantages.
What do you think about the fashion for openly pseudo-Russian tourist huts and restaurants, for example, those that build up on Suzdal and the road from Moscow to Vladimir?
- On the one hand, it is sad to see how enterprising businessmen try to cynically trade in the image of Russian culture. But on the other hand, there is something positive about it. If there is a demand for such "architecture", it means that there is interest in the tradition of wooden architecture, and, therefore, investments in the restoration of monuments of wooden architecture - which are not yet paid attention to due to the alleged unprofitability - can pay off. There is something to think about.
What will you show at Zodchestvo is roughly clear, but how will you show it? How will the exposition be arranged?
“In our exposition, we want to show the key principles of wooden architecture, many of which provide an answer to the current needs of the day. We plan to present them in the simplest possible way, so as not to distract the viewer with the exhibition design, but to focus on the content of the exposition.
