Architectural critic Kristoffer Lindhardt Weiss writes for various publications in Denmark. In addition, he is an architect himself, and also teaches the philosophy of architecture at the Danish Royal Academy of Arts, the School of Architecture and the University of Copenhagen. Weiss was the curator of the Danish National Pavilion at the Venice Architecture Biennale, he is the author of the books “Architecture of the Nordic Countries. Regional Aspects in World Architecture”and“Sustainability as a Vector of City Development”.
Archi.ru:
On your resume - philosophy, fine arts, aspects and trends … What don't you write about as an architecture critic?
Christopher Weiss:
- I never give an aesthetic assessment to projects. Color, styles, drawing, proportions are of little interest to me. For me, architecture, urban planning is urban politics. Who determines Copenhagen's future - market or power? Who is responsible for this? What is the role of the architect in this? The eternal problem of architects is the relationship with the customer, the customer has always been the main one, but now the situation has changed fundamentally: architects have the opportunity to initiate projects, since a modern architect turns to society. In Denmark, the priority is the quality of life. Architecture expresses the ideology of everyday life, it is associated with power, money, the environment, and my task is to show the reader what is happening. I am referring to what is important right now. For example, I am writing about a project for the reconstruction of a railway station: usually this is an unattractive object of transport infrastructure, but new functions were added to it, the typology was changed, and it turned into a place of meetings and events. At the same time, the stylistic features of the station do not bother me.
The ratio of the old and the new, the preservation of heritage - are the problems urgent for Denmark?
- It is important to preserve the cultural heritage, but we must understand that this issue is in the sphere of the conflict between the context and modern trends. We have an ongoing debate over whether an architect is supposed to turn to the classic “Golden Age” (the Danish “Golden Age” falls on the first half of the 19th century - MI) or to focus more on global development. Without the DNA of history - not remembering who we are, without a vision of the future - it is impossible to maintain vitality, and the best way to predict the future is to create it … This dispute allows us to reveal different interests. Most of the members of the Royal Academy are in favor of the widespread preservation of heritage; these respected people are sure that the classical direction in architecture is the main thing. But even if we talk about it from the point of view of sustainable development, there is no definite answer. Historicism without history is a strange thing, they save not for the sake of the process itself, but if they see actual value in the object.
And if you, for example, were the same academic follower of heritage, would this affect your critical position?
- In my opinion, it is important to demonstrate to the reader your own preferences: it is difficult to hide your individuality in the texts. We can and should be different from each other. This is how I choose modernity - despite the fact that for some time I was a consultant in a firm dealing with the preservation of ancient buildings … We are talking with you in the Nizhny Novgorod Arsenal - and I know that this building has been alienated, inaccessible, neglected for decades, and a new life has entered into it not just after restoration, but after an important re-profiling of function: from a warehouse to a modern cultural center. The building has not only revealed an interesting past, but a bright perspective has been highlighted. In Copenhagen, the old docks, built in 1826, which belonged to the military department, which had no architectural value, but were historically significant, were remade in the studio. Now there are architectural bureaus: this was the need of the professional community, and such an idea was in the air. This means that the object should not only be preserved - there are those who are interested in it, know what needs to be done and how … Now Copenhagen, in my opinion, has an artificial appearance: associations with the city are associated with old buildings. In our country, the desire for change as opposed to total preservation is often perceived as disrespect for history. But in this case, history itself acts as a dictator - this is also important to understand. It is useful to get rid of the dogmas of the past, to find new ways to see and feel the city.
How does the critic help here?
- Working in a newspaper is an educational project. We can share knowledge in an interesting and even entertaining way. We must show that good projects, as a rule, preserve regional DNA and interpret traditions, change the scale and meaning of architecture to a global phenomenon. Everyone remembers the Danish pavilion at Expo 2010 in Shanghai. BIG architects built a "mini-Copenhagen" with all the recognizable features of our capital: the found shape did not reproduce the design code, but made it possible to feel the very atmosphere of the city.
But now, isn't anyone willing to educate or become a critic by creating their own blog? How has the Web 2.0 era influenced architectural criticism?
- In the era of the Internet, the importance of newspapers has only increased, however paradoxical it may seem at first glance. The Internet is a good opportunity to start a conversation, a tool for discussions, but with an abundance of voices, of course, a filter is needed. A serious publication maintains a hierarchy of statements. For me personally, developed architectural criticism is one of the democratic manifestations of society. But this is not direct, but symbolic power. In Denmark, several authors are constantly actively writing about architecture: they are opinion leaders, and neither architects nor politicians can ignore them.
Why not?
- Because newspapers track the reaction to criticism. The discussion is open. I live in the center of Copenhagen, next to a former cargo port, and I constantly observe how the industrial zone is gradually turning into a recreation area. The authorities decided how to use this space, and previously they were going to build utilitarian objects like office and shopping centers here. But local residents wanted to make a small park, the discussion of this proposal entailed the following, as a result of which the port water area is gradually cleared, creating a public pool at this place. Such a reorganization takes a long time, but in the process of negotiations it is possible to evaluate and weigh a lot of expert opinions, to find convincing arguments in favor of one or another decision. Experts collaborate with the media: this makes them popular, which is especially important given that most research is funded from the budget. Each project is an agreement of four parties: developer, architect, government, townspeople. The developer wants to make money, the architect wants to create, the authorities want to do something attractive to taxpayers, the townspeople want to get something new. Public importance, benefit to the city, is the common denominator of these often disparate interests. The critic must always remember this common denominator.
Do you have friends among architects or developers? Who are you fighting with?
- There is an expression: "Do not bite the hand that feeds you." It is about the fact that the critic is always faced with a choice. Often architects want us to positively present their work in the press … But the eternal ideal of a publicist is uncompromising. There was a time when I got upset because of grudges against my articles. But that time has passed.
Philosophical approach - you graduated from the Sorbonne! Where can you learn to be an architectural critic?
- This is not specially taught. Not in architectural institutes, not in journalism departments. You yourself need to feel the pulse of life on a daily basis. While studying in Paris, I worked as a landscape architect, in Copenhagen I was a co-owner of the Effekt bureau - we did various projects, including for international competitions. Now I am focused exclusively on the lyrics.
You are also blogging. Does the tone of the statement change there? Do you admit more provocative expressions than in the media?
- Of course. In a blog, I have to call people up for discussion, sometimes - provoke, say tough things, but I do not consider this a loss of face. There are different genres and different techniques, taking into account the perception of the reader. The main thing is to give people the opportunity to express themselves, because here in Denmark people often ask: "What would you like to see?" And this is not a question for the developer or architect, but for the townspeople. Therefore, any project goes through a lot of approvals, citizens have a real opportunity to influence decision-making. The architect, in turn, interacts with public opinion - this is enshrined in law. Although it is known that architects love the classic motto: "The main enemy of art is democracy." Many of them behave like brilliant artists, confident that they are giving something very important to society …
Don't they give it?
- Bjarke Ingels believes that a project is successful only when the architect succeeds in captivating the public with a new idea. Therefore, a good architect always offers something more than the customer expects. I love the work of NL Architects - BasketBar on the university campus in Utrecht - a sports ground on the roof of a café-restaurant with a library. A funny plot arose here: people at the tables can watch the movement of players through a translucent ceiling; in addition, a public area has increased in a limited area, attractive to different people, and this is all actively working. The example of such projects shows that the problem, the constraint becomes for the architect not a barrier, but a catalyst for non-standard solutions. Here we can also mention the project of Bjarke Ingels - a waste recycling plant with a ski slope. An unattractive object that takes away the territory from nature has acquired a positive quality, due to it the recreational space of Copenhagen has increased, the flat Danish landscape has become more diverse … I am telling all this to emphasize: an idea is important, a fascinating story. The main principle is not to take away spaces from the city, but to create them. Not just to showcase your creativity, but to provide a vibrant city life.
Our architect is responsible for the beauty and useful areas, the builder is responsible for the volumes, and the life of the city is the diocese of economic services. It seems that your professional position reflects the Scandinavian approach … Don't Danish architects write and read about composition, artistic value, creative flight?
- If we talk about the art of architecture, the question arises: why are architects interested only in prestigious buildings? Isn't this also a manifestation of the desire for power? We organized a discussion in the newspaper about who should do the mundane. As a result, an exhibition dedicated to affordable housing was held at the Royal Academy … Now we have a left-wing government in our country. And I choose a topic for a new discussion in the newspaper.
