Archi.ru:
Do you consider yourself an architecture critic?
Anatoly Belov:
- Let's first define who the critic is. Maybe it is the one who gives the assessment, judges? If we take this explanation as a basis, then I am not a critic, since I always try to refrain from harsh, uncompromising statements … Although, it would seem, being an architect by education, I have every moral right to criticize architecture. But the problem is that my father is an architect, and I know firsthand how difficult and thankless this profession is, how often developers and officials disfigure initially good projects. Therefore, when I look at a building that has failed from my point of view, I cannot help but ask myself: "Is it really the fault of the architect?" And finding the answer to this question is often very, very difficult. Sometimes it is not at all. Then, you need to understand: of the architects, of whom there are several tens of thousands in Russia today (there are more than ten thousand in Moscow alone), not all are artistically gifted, which is normal, but this deficiency completely balances out such a quality as professionalism. Architecture is half art and half craft. To criticize architects solely from the standpoint of aesthetics is, in my opinion, not entirely fair. And in order to criticize architecture from the point of view of a craft, it is desirable to be inside the process. For this reason, the format of in-house criticism is close to me. It is not by chance that author columns of authoritative practitioners - Levon Airapetov, Evgeny Ass, Mikhail Belov appeared in our magazine. Soon, I hope, Sergey Mishin, Maxim Atayants will be added to this list …
Alas, in Soviet times, in-house criticism acquired a repressive character, turning into an instrument of political censorship: suffice it to recall Karo Alabyan's “comradely” criticism of the “formalists” Konstantin Melnikov and Ivan Leonidov on the pages of the Architecture USSR magazine. Therefore, the majority of modern Russian architects, who have found the Soviet system, are allergic to in-shop criticism. And targeted criticism of colleagues, and even on the public plane, is something completely impossible and indecent for them. But now is a different time. The authorities are not interested in architecture, there is no ideology as such. The line between "good" and "bad", between professionalism and unprofessionalism has almost disappeared, and it is for this reason that the opinion of specialists about each other and about the situation as a whole is more important than ever. So it seems to me.
Returning to the answer to your question, I like to think of myself as a person who captures a historical moment. Of course, this is a very selective fixation: I speak and write only about what I consider worthy of discussion. As Grigory Revzin once told me in a personal conversation, journalism is the "food" of historians. A lot of events are happening around us, and we, journalists, are engaged in fetching the most important and interesting from this seething sea of relevant information, thereby, in fact, defining the appearance of the era. Imagine for a second that there was no magazine "Contemporary Architecture" - they did not invent it, and that's it! How would we today perceive the architecture of the Soviet avant-garde, what would we know about it? The PROJECT RUSSIA team is engaged, roughly speaking, in separating the wheat from the chaff. Of course, you can publish everything in a row - this is also a position that has the right to exist. But we are closer to such, say, a snobbish approach.
At the same time, I consider it necessary to note that I greatly respect professional critics - they are brave people. I remember how I specially took Nikolai Malinin to the roof of the Imperial House residential complex built by my father, and after that he dashed off a lively feuilleton about this episode in the Vedomosti newspaper - "The charm of a superficial glance" is called. I have no complaints about him. Although Malinin seems to have expected the opposite. The status of the editor-in-chief does not allow me to be so brave. That is, not only am I not eager, but, in general, I cannot be a critic, since I am in some sense a political figure - in the scale of our architectural community, of course.
But in the history of world architecture of the 20th century, there are many editors-in-chief who significantly influenced the development of architecture or at least spoke out very sharply on current issues. They actively participated in professional discussion, even if they themselves were not practitioners, supported certain directions, and entered into conflicts
- We do not avoid polemics, but at the same time we try to be above the fight: there are freelance authors who are not obliged to take our point of view into account, but we are not responsible for their statements either. There may be other opinions on this score, of course, this is a difficult ethical issue … Of course, when an author writes something very, very sharp, we discuss this material with members of the editorial board, which, besides me, includes the publisher PROJECT RUSSIA Bart Goldhoorn and my predecessor Alexey Muratov as editor-in-chief, we are trying to understand how well-reasoned the resulting text is, and we decide what to do. It happens, of course, that members of the editorial board allow themselves, as they say, to be bold. For example, in issue 73, I wrote a rather caustic text about last year's "ArchStoyaniya", which, by the way, I regretted when I learned that Maxim Nogotkov had stopped funding ArchPolis, but I had the expectation that there would be an answer to my note and that we will print it. And so it happened - the provocation worked. The co-founder of ArchStoya Anton Kochurkin wrote a wonderful, witty text in the 74th issue. The result was a healthy, intelligent polemic. Another story comes to mind. In the first issue that I did in status and. about. the editor-in-chief (I mean the 70th issue of PROJECT RUSSIA on the theme "City of Women" - note from Archi.ru), there was a long article about Mikhail Filippov, an architect whom I respect very much. In it, the editor of our magazine Asya Belousova criticized the layout of the Italian Quarter residential complex built according to his project. I missed this in the magazine because I agreed with Belousova, although I understood that such a publication was fraught with conflict. Be that as it may, there are not so many architectural magazines in Russia. Architects know this. They, of course, may take offense and not be published, but what's the point? Moreover, we are always open for dialogue both on the eve of the release of the issue and after.
As for influence, you can influence in different ways. Let's say there is such a thing as visuals. Don't underestimate its impact on the reader. You can build it in such a way that the reader himself will understand what is worse and what is better, what is original and what is secondary, what is high culture, and what is culture in its infancy. And you don't even need to hint at anything, let alone criticize. A simple visual comparison is sometimes more effective than any criticism.
Such neutrality is characteristic of the entire domestic architectural press, including our portal, although each edition has its own scheme of work and its own editorial policy. It can be concluded that the Russian architectural media see their main task in informing readers. Or does PROJECT RUSSIA have more ambitious goals?
- One of our main tasks is educational. Maybe I'm exaggerating now, but in the years that have passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, our architects have somewhat forgotten history. Speaking specifically about young people, she doesn't know them at all. And it's not a lack of curiosity or some disgusted attitude. The sudden opening of borders after so many years of isolation turned into a general interest in everything modern, that "from there", which, in turn, blocked interest in history, including one's own history. This, in my opinion, is a wrong, unhealthy situation. I consider it important to return the topic of history to the professional agenda.
Friedensreich Hundertwasser once said: “Whoever does not honor his past loses the future. He who destroys his roots cannot grow. " Six months ago, in the 73rd issue of PROJECT RUSSIA, the first issue of the historical rubric "Man, Home, Place" was published under the scientific editorship of the rector of Moscow Architectural Institute Dmitry Shvidkovsky. There were controversies in the editorial office over whether the magazine needed her. The opinion was expressed that this could turn PROJECT RUSSIA into a "Project Classic", which closed in 2009, that is, deprive it of some kind of originality. But in the end, everyone agreed that such a heading would revive the magazine. It’s not for me, of course, to judge, but it seems that it happened. And the magazine has not lost its originality at all - it has too strong, integral structure.
Among other things, history sometimes teaches us important lessons in professional dignity. With the advent of capitalism, Russian architects found themselves in a situation of fierce competition, and many chose the simplest path - the path of concessions, including gustatory ones, thus finding themselves in fact in the position of servants. The problem is that it was a deliberate choice, that is, if in the previous decades the architects were suppressed by the Soviet regime, with which they could not do anything, then here they had options for what to do. And the choice they made led to the fact that society simply ceased to respect them, and over time - and this is the worst thing - the architects ceased to respect themselves. So, in history, there are inspiring examples of incredible courage of architects who, in theory, could help to ensure that this humiliating process of self-discrediting finally reverses, no matter how naive it may sound. For example, when Nikolai Leontievich Benois designed the stables in Peterhof, Nicholas I instructed him to place a smithy building across the central arched axis. In the end, the architect made two projects: in the first he took into account the wishes of the emperor, and in the second he retained the arched perspective, placing the smithy in a different place. Nikolai, of course, marveled at Benois's audacity, but still settled on the option with an open axle. Can you imagine this now? In my opinion, no.
“Isn’t anything like this happening today?” After all, architects always tell how they persuaded the customer to take this or that step. Not everyone works with "emperors" - there are also quite adequate developers
- According to my observations, “arguing” architects are in the minority. The rest prefer the path of conciliation. However, even if the architect, having designed the building, defended his point of view, it is possible that the customer will then do everything in his own way - no one is particularly worried about copyright in our country. A good example here is the "Imperial House" I have already mentioned. And although this is rather a matter of legal regulation, it is important how this state of affairs affects the professional consciousness of architects. Why should they bicker with the customer if they know in advance that any agreements can be canceled unilaterally? Look how the "Gorki Gorod" of Filippov and Atayants was mutilated! The architectural community should have fiercely defended its rights from the very beginning, twenty years ago, and precisely as a community, that is, it had to act as a united front, unitedly. But the moment is missed.
How do you assess your year and a half as editor-in-chief? What is happening with PROJECT RUSSIA magazine now? What plans do you have for the future?
- I will allow myself to refrain from any assessments. I can only say the following. When Alexey Muratov left the editorial office in October 2013, we faced two serious problems - organizational and reputational. Everything is clear about the first one, I think. As for the second, when I was appointed and. about. editor-in-chief, I'm sorry, I was only 26 years old. The head of the thickest architectural magazine in the country, who has not yet passed the draft age, is, you must admit, somewhat exotic. There were fears that there would be difficulties in communicating with our architectural aksakals, because it is strange, when you are 50, to speak on an equal footing with a person who is two times younger. But everything worked out somehow. There were complaints from individual architects in working order, but we settled these conflicts. Until now, no one has refused to publish in the magazine. And that says something, I guess.
I will answer your last two questions with one sentence: the PROJECT RUSSIA team is now engaged in making plans for the future - they are not yet completely clear. I can only say with certainty that the magazine will not go anywhere and will be published as before. And the future is not determined by me alone: there is an editorial board, there is the general director of the publishing house in the person of Olga Potapova, there is the opinion of our friends and partners. But this is good - too much responsibility for one person.
Yes, I completely forgot: this year the magazine is celebrating its 20th anniversary! So, here we are preparing an event.
Anatoly Belov - journalist, photographer, architect, editor-in-chief of PROJECT RUSSIA magazine. Graduated from the Moscow Architectural Institute (2009). Author of over 100 publications on architecture and contemporary art, including scholarly articles and interviews. At various times he collaborated with such publications as PROJECT CLASSIC, "Architectural Bulletin", Made in Future, "Big City". In 2006 he founded an internet magazine about architecture and design walkingcity.ru (closed in 2010). Laureate of the Prize of the International Festival "Zodchestvo-2009" for a series of articles on contemporary architecture. He is also actively involved in curatorial activities. In 2007, he curated the exhibition of "paper architecture" in Tokyo (together with Pavel Zeldovich). In 2009 he organized at the State Museum of Architecture. AV Shchusev exhibition "Let's Play Classics, or New Historicism". In 2011, he organized the New Workshops exposition within the framework of the Arch Moscow International Exhibition of Architecture and Design. In 2012, at the same Arch Moscow, he supervised the exhibition “The Great Skolkovo Competition”, acted as an editor and compiler of the catalog of the said exposition.
