Kirill Ass - architect, employee of Alexander Brodsky's bureau, author of Colta.ru and OpenSpace.ru Internet publications, Project Russia and Project Baltia magazines, artist, curator.
Archi.ru:
- At first glance, things with the architectural information space in Russia are not so bad. Magazines are published, monographs are published, a number of Internet resources are replenished with new names. But if we talk about personalities, authors who would systematically write about architecture, would have clearly expressed their own opinion and manner, then the picture becomes not so optimistic. The number of outstanding and reputable publicists is steadily decreasing
It seems that the reason - in the absence of a need - both in society as a whole and in the workshop environment - is in the author's architectural criticism, instead of which, with more or less success, architectural journalism is cultivated in the format of impersonal information messages that do not go beyond the boundaries of the statement of fact. and minimally outlined stylistic or methodological connections with general world trends or phenomena
It is quite indicative in this regard that some specialized Internet resources do not indicate the names of the authors of the articles at all. An individual point of view and a full-fledged analysis of events are becoming a rarity in the Russian information space. Even those well-known names that, in fact, come to mind when the phrase “architectural criticism” is used, are less and less often found under texts about current architectural events. And you are no exception in this regard: your last publication came out a year ago. So what is happening now with architectural criticism in Russia? Or is it better to use the term "architectural journalism"?
Kirill Ass:
- Architectural criticism, I would call texts aimed primarily at professionals, and journalism - texts for the general public. What I was doing on OpenSpace and other resources was more likely related to the latter.
The problems with architectural criticism in Russia are associated with the lack of its consumer. Thanks to the events of the late 20s - early 30s of the last century, after the defeat of architectural theorizing, criticism as such disappeared altogether. Formally, she portrayed her existence in the form of texts of an absolutely mystical sense, operating with incredible concepts permeated with the untouchable concept of socialist realism. For example, just read the magazine "Architecture of the USSR". But as a genre and a process of comprehension, as an integral part of architectural practice, criticism simply ceased to exist.
From a substantive point of view, almost everything that is being designed now in Russia is just a beautiful picture, the meanings of which remain non-verbalized - both at the design stage and at the stage of assessing the result. As a result, even the existing architectural criticism is addressed to people who perform their work without comprehension and verbalization, i.e. she goes nowhere. And those few architects and researchers who are looking for meanings are more likely to get them not from reading texts, but from direct communication with each other.
How, then, do you assess your experience in architectural journalism? Why did you write before and why did you stop now?
- I cannot clearly formulate my critical position. There are some views that coexist rather isolated from each other, and so far I can hardly compose them in a closed, hermetic structure and present them as a complete idea.
As for journalism, my motivation was and is not to write once again that Russian architecture is bad for this and that reason, and the houses that are being designed are terrible, because it is done very badly, but old houses do not need to be demolished, because they were designed somehow and this is the memory of Russia. This whole fan of familiar topics has practically exhausted itself in journalistic terms. You cannot repeat the same thing endlessly. The desire to write something arises when a topic or event touches a living, but lately this happens less and less. The subject of my interests is too metaphysical and distracted from everyday experience and the sphere of interest of the reader - even the one on which I am guided. Now, when, simultaneously with the destruction of a huge part of the neighboring state, some valuable building in Moscow is being demolished, this event, tragic for our heritage, inevitably looks like something of a secondary importance. Therefore, the hand does not rise to write. I can respond to some question that is asked to me and write something, but it seems strange to me to express some sudden remark about the current Russian architecture in this context.
And, nevertheless, in the architectural environment there is a demand for publicity and analysis. Architects want their buildings to be published and their work to be classified and evaluated in some way. This genre could be called proto-criticism. How do you feel about this genre?
- The need to get a public response to your work is quite natural. This requires an external critic, who, however, has to literally search for content in the work in order to explain what the author did and why. Some architects work more meaningfully, some less. But almost no one declares their conceptual vision, from which one could build on in assessing the projects and buildings created. There is no habit of formulating and then implementing architectural ideas and vice versa, and the reason for its absence is in the specifics of our architectural education. As a result, we found ourselves in a situation of languagelessness of architecture, which was left without an expressed message, with an unmanifest meaning.
This is especially noticeable in our architectural education. Students design, receive grades, but discussion, criticism of their work takes place behind closed doors, between teachers. Architectural discourse in the traditional educational process, as a rule, is based on taste assessments and vulgar practicality. As a result of this education, we have the modern Russian architecture that we have.
Among those who are now writing about architecture, there are many graduates of art history faculties. How do you rate this?
- I don't see any pros or cons here. This is the current situation. What art critics say and write about architecture is a diagnosis of the state of architectural education, in which architectural criticism is not a subject of discussion. Art critics, by the nature of their knowledge, must know. Architecture is also art, so you need to know it too. There were architects in their time. But for some reason they are now not visible. As a result, no one really knows about architecture. Some managers are in charge of it
Perhaps the situation will be fundamentally changed by the reform of architectural education?
- Perhaps, but it is a very slow process. People who are now being released are 20-25 years old. They will become established architects by the age of 40-50. Moreover, no particular prospects for reform are yet to be seen.
“But we have an example of Strelka graduates who are by no means carriers of a post-socialist mental tradition, but who successfully cooperate with the existing system, using its resources and tools to implement their projects. Many graduates of Strelka try themselves - quite effectively - in journalistic and even writing roles. Perhaps they will lay the foundations for a new Russian architectural criticism?
- Strelka is not a part of the education reform, but an independent project, just like MARSH. They exist outside the education system that needs to be reformed. The inability to initiate reforms within the system forces active people to look for alternative non-systemic forms. But this is a parallel history, one of many existing inside and around Russian architecture, which intersect with each other.
What Strelka alumni write can only be welcomed, because Strelka's entire task was to raise people with a different mindset, capable of analysis and reflection. However, for the emergence of a critical field, the participation of professional architects is necessary, expressing their thoughts not only in stone, but also on paper.
It is also important that architecture is close to the political situation, it is the closest art to politics - especially when it is included in politics in the most direct way, since it receives money from the elements embedded in the political system. When criticism of the authorities is in fact a jurisdictional matter, then architectural criticism, which extends, among other things, to the projects of the authorities, may not be jurisdictional, but turns out to be absolutely irrelevant.
What is the role of the architectural community? Does he have a request for nonconformism - if not ideologically and semantic, then at least culturally and informationally?
- Our architectural community is a fairly tough competitive field, where no one is ready to take really uncompromising steps. Non-conformism in architecture is a direct path to marginality, since architecture as a kind of activity depends to a large extent on the political system in the broadest sense of the word. Architecture, on the one hand, is a formal manifestation of polity, that is, the entire constitution of society, and on the other, within the framework of the current system, it must correspond to a gigantic set of requirements of a very different nature, that is, conformism is to a large extent its essential basis. At the same time, it is the marginal phenomena that become decisive over time. True, such views on architectural practice are not very popular now.
And what can we talk about if in 2015 we continue to observe discussions, including among professionals, about the value and significance of the Black Square and the Russian avant-garde? People publicly declare their incredible lack of culture. More precisely, they define their culture by rejecting a huge layer of cultural heritage, including Russian, denying it, because it seems to be ugly or incomprehensible. This is one of the manifestations of the loss of communication and understanding of the sources and meanings of the modern architectural language. And the same thing happens in the field of architectural theory and criticism. There is a huge amount of basic text for understanding what and how is created, where these objects and forms come from, which look so beautiful in magazines. These texts are unknown, not read, not understood, not in demand.
Perhaps the situation will be influenced by architectural Internet resources with their ability to access a variety of information, including theoretical works and historical materials?
- This is probably useful. The emergence of electronic media has become a completely natural and quick way to fill information gaps. But the key word in the question is “very different”: the absence of hierarchies, characteristic of the Internet as a whole, leads to difficulties in choosing information. In other words, the availability of information is an undoubted blessing, but an individual person is hardly able to independently find, and even more so - to choose from what he finds really worthwhile. This does not mean that there is some only correct system or compendum of knowledge. As before, our knowledge and tastes are shaped not only by formal education, but also to an equal degree by myriads of accidents leading to certain interests, deepening and discoveries. The role of education in this situation becomes similar to that of a guidebook, which outlines the main directions and sets out the main milestones in the history of the city so that the traveler does not get lost and can determine what he is dealing with.
