The round table on the prospects for the development of architectural education in Russia was held within the framework of the Research project - an educational section, which at the Zodchestvo -2015 festival was supervised by Oscar Mamleev, professor of MARSH and MARCHI. Archi.ru published his interview and an interview with the director of the MARSH school, Nikita Tokarev, about this project.
For the second time at Zodchestvo you are presenting a project dedicated to education. What are the results of this year?
Oscar Mamleev:
- The continuation of the conversation about education in Russia was the research, analytical component of the projects of architectural universities, complex design issues. The diplomas of the Moscow Architectural Institute, MARSH, MGSU, Strelka, Vologda, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara and Kazan universities were presented. The transfer of the educational process of the MARSH school - lectures, seminars, discussions - to the territory of the Central House of Artists presented a special acuteness of the exposition. The end of the three days of work was a discussion on the topic "Prospects for the development of architectural education in the country" with the participation of architects - school teachers, presented at the exhibition.
We publish a transcript of the discussion.
Discussion participants:
Oskar Mamleev, curator of the Research project - moderator
Nikita Tokarev, MARSH school, director
Konstantin Kiyanenko, Vologda State University, Professor
Ilnar Akhtyamov, Kazan State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering
Marko Mihich-Eftic, MARCHI
Vsevolod Medvedev, Moscow Architectural Institute
Daliya Safiullina, Strelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design
Oscar Mamleev
- We have just watched the material of the Strelka alumni team. Strelka is not exactly an architectural education in the accepted understanding, and after watching this material and the guys' explanations, we will be able to adequately perceive this work in the context of our discussion.
Varvara Nazarova, a graduate of the Strelka Institute
- We did the Great Future project during the last three months of the academic year. All student teams concentrated on imagining what awaits us in 50 years, “seeing” this world. To make it more interesting, each team focused on one task, on one aspect of life. We focused on biology and ultimately medicine. We started by researching how we take care of our health. Earlier, going in for sports, they prepared for work and defense. But what we are preparing for now is not very clear - most likely for a slow death. Why? The number of chronic diseases in the world is constantly growing. For example, in 15 years, there will be half as many cancer patients and a quarter more ischemic patients. Russia completely fits into this trend: it is the number one country in the number of people dying from cardiovascular diseases. And in this situation, it immediately becomes clear that in Russia a person is forced to take care of health into their own hands. And compared to what it was 50 years ago, we have more opportunities for this, technological ways. For example, now you will not surprise anyone with computer equipment that allows you to constantly monitor pressure, temperature, and, by detecting deviations, make early diagnosis of diseases.
Most likely, in 50 years, instead of a polyclinic, there will be some new medical institution, a new system. We concentrated on thinking about such a new system. […] Taking care of yourself, your health, in our understanding, is becoming a new fashion, and the creation of trade and health centers will become the basis for the spread of this type of consumption. We took the existing city as a basis: first, a scientific center will appear there, small startups will start cooperating around it, and then the idea of a coordination large health center will arise. And you can also observe how the human body is being transformed, "overgrown" with prostheses and implants, because it has become necessary to fight diseases and therefore is very common. [you can read more about the project
in the publication on Archi.ru].
Oscar Mamleev
- You see how the transformation of the human body can lead us to the formation of completely different cities.
We begin our discussion, I invite the participants to take their seats. We are glad to welcome you. My name is Oscar Mamleev, I am a professor at Moscow Architectural Institute and the MARCH school. This year I am the curator of the special project "Research", on the "territory" of which we are. I will be the moderator of today's discussion and present to you the participants: Marko Mikhich-Eftic is a representative of the Moscow Architectural Institute, he works in the Moscow Architectural Institute in a group with Yuri Grigoryan. Vsevolod Medvedev is also a teacher at Moscow Architectural Institute. This is a group - Mikhail Kanunnikov, Vsevolod Medvedev and Zurab Basaria - three teachers who are united by practical work in the Fourth Dimension bureau. Daliya Safiullina is a representative of the Strelka Institute. Konstantin Kiyanenko - Doctor of Architecture, Professor of the Vologda University. Nikita Tokarev is the director of MARSH, and Ilnar Akhtyamov is a teacher at Kazan University. To begin with, I will introduce you to the opinion of a person who could not be on our discussion. it Michael Eichner - an architect from Munich, teaching at Moscow Architectural Institute and MGSU.
When I learned that Professor Eichner would not be able to participate, I asked him for a few thoughts on how he envisions the prospects for architectural education. He is a graduate of the University of Munich, taught and practiced architecture in Germany, and for several years he has been dealing with the educational process in Russian institutes. “For several years in Russia there has been a master's program in accordance with the Bologna system. And the main architecture universities in the country are looking for opportunities to implement the third standard program. For Russia, the emergence of this new program is especially valuable, as it stimulates the renewal of the old established system of higher architectural education. At this time, higher architectural education in Russia with a large number of general educational subjects without connection with a specialty tends more towards the school than towards the university approach. In modern European institutions, the curriculum is changing at a very fast pace, which does not happen in Russian universities."
Michael Eichner noted three positions. The first is less restrictions, more freedom. “For the successful implementation of the Master's program in Russian universities, changes are required at different levels. The main goal is to contribute to the development of science, for which it is necessary to ensure the freedom of action and thinking of the teaching staff. The second is choice and interaction. It is important to provide students with a choice of programs, relevant subjects and ensure interaction with non-university specialists and partners. And third - openness and attractiveness, the willingness of universities to cooperate with leading companies, to attract modern specialists, which leads to decent funding. The programs and master's degrees in the Bologna system provide tremendous opportunities, representing freedom in various scientific fields, and this freedom, in turn, must be used and protected."
Now I will ask my esteemed colleagues to answer a few questions. And the first of them is the specificity of the work of the workshops - not entirely of the university, but of those workshops that they head.
Ilnar Akhtyamov:
- My name is Ilnar Akhtyamov, and I represent Kazan here. As such, we do not have a studio or workshop, our studio is an academic group led by two teachers, mine and Reseda Akhtyamova, in which we conduct a number of disciplines related to common goals, objectives and the author's approach. We work according to the author's methodology, from the first year of study to graduate work, which is mainly based on several areas of research. Firstly, the study of the "potential", possibilities and content of space, secondly, it is the study of the social organization of the city and society (experimental social modeling), and, thirdly, the study of the interaction "man-nature", biotechnology. The foundation of our program is several disciplines, these are spatial modeling, architectural drawing, experimental design.
Nikita Tokarev:
- I do not run a design studio at MARSH, so I will tell you how the design is set up in our school as a whole. We use a studio system. Its essence is that every semester we invite new teachers from among practicing architects to lead design studios. The school does not have a once and for all set of design assignments, and each teacher comes with his own program to the studio, which is not built around a particular typology, but around a problem that the teacher would like to explore, think over, and offer solutions with his students. during the semester or - for the graduation studio - during the year. This means that during their studies, students can get to know different teachers, different methodologies, different personalities, creative approaches and touch on the pressing issues of today's architectural practice and theory - depending on the nature of the studio. Thus, we keep in touch all the time with practice, design, provide variety and the opportunity to choose, because, first of all, the student needs to choose from the five offered studios, to understand what he would like to do: he would like to design “long-playing” housing with Vladimir Plotkin or explore architecture as a metaphor with Boris Shabunin, etc. The range of possible topics is very wide, we do not limit teachers in the choice of topics, in the choice of the program. This is their creative contribution to the school. We believe that in this way we support architectural education at MARSH.
Konstantin Kiyanenko
- I represent the Vologda State University - the state school of architecture. People who want to do something in their own way always have this opportunity. As long as I teach, I have never done what is required by official documents, work programs, standard textbooks. If ministerial officials or university leaders think that teachers are busy with what is written in the papers, then they are wrong. The main guidelines for the work of what I call my workshop (in fact, I do not have a workshop, there are certain approaches and students), are determined by the structure and approach not of the Russian, but of the American school of architecture. I think that the American school, as not affected by the Bologna process, is more successful, and therefore many Europeans leave their good architecture schools to study in the United States. The principles are that we try not to use such a respected concept as creativity. We solve problems, primarily social and cultural. If there is such a word in our vocabulary, then in such a bundle it is a creative problem solving. We try to work with a theoretical approach, that is, to solve problems through the prism of various concepts that need to be introduced to students. We believe that one of the weaknesses of our architectural education is the lack of theoreticalness. There are no necessary textbooks, the necessary literature has not been translated, students who do not know the languages do not have the opportunity to get acquainted with important works. We are forced to solve these problems in an artisanal way. I myself translate something and tell the students, I stimulate the study of foreign languages, the purchase of those books that are necessary for learning, but are absent in our practice. Students spend many tens of euros and dollars to buy and ship these books. And the third setting is the reliance on the concept of the built environment as one of the most fundamental in education, which, unfortunately, is not widely used in our vocabulary. This is a concept that, on the one hand, shows the methods of urban planning and urban design, landscape architecture, restoration, and, on the other hand, allows you to identify the specifics of the architectural approach. We believe that in our school of architecture it is very common to blur the lines between the architectural approach and non-architecture, which is unsafe for the profession. She loses a lot. I recently conducted an experiment - I looked on the Internet for examples of graphic works on request in Russian "architectural image", and in English - "image". Do this experiment yourself and compare the quality of the two words. In one case, you will see a terrible chaos of monstrous, unintelligible, helpless and disordered forms. In another case, there are clear signs of an architectural school, a clear understanding of the professional foundation, mastery of craft skills, which is an important component of the profession. In short, this is what we do.
Oscar Mamleev
- I will add to what Constantine said. In MARCHI, joint seminars with the University of Tokyo are regularly held, and once the theme "Park" was proposed. Our students immediately began to draw beautiful flowers, paths … And the Japanese students wrote, wrote, and everything turned into a presentation, maybe not as beautiful as that of the Moscow Architectural Institute students, but it was absolutely reasoned motivation. That is, they described what content elements and why should be in the park, how people move in this space, for which age groups it is intended. This is an exploratory approach, not just a collection of some pretty snippets.
Daliya Safiullina
- I represent the Strelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design, a non-governmental institution of postgraduate education. And here I am probably the complete opposite of my colleague who just spoke, because the focus of the study is on changing the landscape of Russian cities, but we are just advocating an interdisciplinary approach. In this regard, the Strelka Institute cannot be called an architectural education, because, firstly, not only architects study there, but also urbanists, sociologists, political scientists, and a huge number of other professions. And the essence of the method itself is that over the last century the architect has narrowed his scope of activity, while in modern society there is a demand for a person who will have cross-skill - that is, a specialist in a certain area who can “cover” other areas because he has basic knowledge in these areas.
The program began as the author's idea of Rem Koolhaas, who in his work came to the conclusion that along with the architectural practice of OMA there is a request for research, and this is how his “think tank” AMO appeared. Between the two stages - the problem and the solution to the problem, which usually translates into a spatial solution in the performance of the architect, there is an important stage, which is practically overlooked in Russia - pre-design. This is the moment when the architect must understand why he is doing architecture. Only by elaborating the pre-design in detail, you can understand what functionality a building might have.
And everything that happens at Strelka is aimed at this research function, in order to understand everything until the moment when the building is already under construction.
Oscar Mamleev
- From my point of view, Strelka's graduation works are reminiscent of the English school of Bartlett. This is one of the, as they say, "coolest" schools in England, where in the course of design, not exactly architectural issues are studied, but problems that must be solved using various approaches that show the complexity of our profession.
Marko Mihich-Eftic:
- We [at Moscow Architectural Institute] never tell students what is good or what is bad, we ask questions. Before making a project, we ask the question of why this is necessary in order to understand the problems, what tasks the project sets before us. We respect the tradition of MARCHI, but some doubts arise. We use methods such as protection, showing works to experts, and so on within our group.
Oscar Mamleev
- Those who know the structure of Moscow Architectural Institute understand that we cannot (whatever projects a creative teacher would like to propose) to make a topic outside the program. And sometimes the topic has not changed for decades, and the teachers of the group answer to the leadership: “Yes, we are doing this topic,” but they develop it according to their own scenario. I was now recalling the story of this group, when the School project was being made there. Each project is supervised by a teacher who knows this topic well. And when I heard that there were some attacks on this group, I guessed what it was about. The teachers of the group invited the students to come up with individual programs for the schools and design the object according to them. What is a school, what size it is, what age group it is designed for. And thus they violated the program.
Vsevolod Medvedev:
- It is gratifying to realize that in Russian architecture universities there are groups that are going their own way. Our institute [MARCHI] does not fully understand what will happen to architecture in 8-10 years. And in this regard, a large number of problems arise. Our principle is very simple. The students and I begin to design on an equal footing. The main principle is equality and understanding of both students, pupils and children who have just graduated from school, who do not know anything. We immerse them from the first project directly into the real environment, where they work on real territory, explain the position of a potential investor who will be interested in a particular project. We propose to do it according to the present terms of reference. It is very difficult to overlap with the programs of the architectural institute. We are trying to maneuver somehow. And our group occupies a separate position, they try not to touch us. At the end, a mandatory defense is carried out, practicing architects are invited, this, of course, is very good. Our group is a model of a small architectural bureau.
Oscar Mamleev
- We talked about the specifics of the work of specific workshops. And my second question is this: what is the attitude of the university, the leadership, the academic council to such experimental workshops? I understand that this question may not be addressed to all participants, because MARSH and Strelka are independent institutions, there are no ministries above them that would issue recommendations on the rules of the game.
Konstantin Kiyanenko
- The ministries are not letting us down. Until recently, my university was called technical, now it is creative, it was merged with a teacher training university, as is done in many provincial cities, and we have very good relations with the leadership. We pretend that we obey them, and they pretend that they are in charge. They do not understand anything in our business and do not try to delve into it. There is one drawback. Retirees from the local government usually settle in the universities of the provincial cities, this is considered a prestigious place of work. And these people are trying to lead the educational process. But, since they do not know how to do this, they are forced to fill out a large number of papers, according to which, as they think, it is possible to control the content of the educational process. This is a problem that takes up a lot of teachers' time - the need to fill out a lot of paperwork. Everyone guesses that nothing can be monitored using these securities. We live in parallel worlds with the leadership of the university. They like it when we bring diplomas [from shows and competitions]. Oskar Raulievich is a very attentive person, he always sends letters to the university administration after his competitions and exhibitions, where he thanks us for our successful participation; it helps us a lot.
Marko Mihich-Eftic:
- The attitude of the management towards us is very good, because we are not trying to fight them. Lately, it’s even too good. We always fulfill all their requirements better than other groups.
Oscar Mamleev
“This means that an architect must also be a diplomat.
Vsevolod Medvedev:
- We don't contact at all. It sounded right here: you just have to work well. We have a mockup, we have a video, and we have giant 3D pictures. Our students and teachers are busy with business with pleasure and work at a high level. In principle, there is no criticism and conflicts. Of course, there are small ukolchiki, but nothing more, they are not very noticeable. There are more problems here that relate not to a separate group, but to the education system in general.
Ilnar Akhtyamov:
- The Kazan School of Architecture is located in the structure of a civil engineering university, so, unfortunately, one cannot count on understanding. The attitude to the architectural specialty is predominantly utilitarian and superficial. Within the Institute of Architecture, our approach is of interest but lacks support. The management tries not to notice us, our work and successes. The reasons for this attitude are not known to us.
Oscar Mamleev
- Now there is a lot of talk about computer graphics. And the old guard says that we are losing the charm of hand-drawing skills, students are trying to solve not only the presentation, but also the creative process at the expense of the computer, believing that technology can help them not only draw, but also come up with something. You have, I noticed in those works that we saw last year, an excellent hand feed.
Ilnar Akhtyamov:
- In our country, hand-drawn graphics dominate, because it is a short way to convey an idea from head to head. In our methodology, there is no opposition between manual and computer graphics. We actively use architectural drawing at all stages of design, so our students have developed spatial thinking, are able to imagine an object and space of any complexity. And they can "materialize" this by any professional means, but in our works we strive to use hand graphics, model techniques, compositional modeling and textual representation on equal terms. We believe that this mixed technique is our strong point.
Oscar Mamleev
- The next, very important question that I would like to discuss is about such a concept as tradition. Is it good or evil? Two years ago I consulted a diploma at Strelka. The author, Anna Poznyak, considered the topic that we are now discussing - the prospects for architectural education. And she showed three models of development. The first model is conservation, that is, everything is as it is and remains, the institution is closed from the outside world, especially from the inclinations of any Bologna conventions and other innovations, and does what has not changed for decades. The second, diametrically opposite move - the institution is closed, and a new one is created in its place, not taking into account everything that was before. And the third, the best option, when the positive that the institute has accumulated over the years of its existence is used to move forward, with the simultaneous introduction of experimental methods and projects. I would like to ask all my colleagues about the attitude towards traditions in their universities.
Nikita Tokarev:
- I would like to recall the well-known expression of Vladimir Tatlin: "Not to the new, not to the old, but to the necessary." In my opinion, the contradiction is somewhat far-fetched. And the question is not so much about tradition, but about understanding what architecture and architectural education need today. What competencies an architect should have in the future, where to find them, in traditions or in new approaches. By virtue of our history, we are less attached to the traditions of architectural education in Russia, perhaps more to the traditions of British education, since our program is based on the British curriculum. At the same time, all our teachers and students are more often associated with the Russian tradition of education. All teachers studied at the Moscow Architectural Institute or other Russian, Soviet schools. Students also come to graduate school after 4-6 years of study [in a "traditional" university]. Therefore, we undoubtedly interact with traditions. It is interesting to ask at the end of the discussion of the participants if there are traces of this interaction in the works of MARSH. For example, you can see that almost all of our students are very willing, do a lot and work well with their hands. From my point of view, this is a continuation of the Russian and Soviet tradition with an orientation towards handicraft, drawing, painting, and so on. And we are very supportive of this work, we develop and cultivate it both in the magistracy and in the baccalaureate. This is one of the aspects of interaction with tradition. And here I see no contradictions, rather, the joint work of traditional and more recent elements.
Konstantin Kiyanenko:
- I am reminded of one good example about traditions. Maybe this example will be new for many. One architecture critic writes about the pyramid of J. M. Pei in the Louvre, discussing how this relates to the French architectural tradition, that if by tradition we mean not the urban context, but the traditions of French culture, which has always been very innovative, then this is a very traditional solution. That is, innovation and innovation as a tradition. We treat tradition in our own way in approximately the same way. I work in a very small department, there are only 10 teachers, we are all more or less like-minded people. We try to keep some principles in our work. In particular, we do a lot of architectural programming. We believe that this is part of our tradition today. But the most important resource of education, the source of everything new, is the students themselves. They usually come with interesting and unexpected things. And if this impulse received from our students requires us to change some of our principles, perhaps we will go for it. Because the most important thing, we believe, in our tradition is an orientation towards new things.
Oscar Mamleev:
- An interesting approach - traditions in constant change.
Marko Mihich-Eftic:
- I cannot say about a specific attitude to traditions, we treat tradition as a context, because there are very rich and different traditions in the Moscow Architectural Institute. We treat all this with great respect, and knowledge of history is very important for us. To do something new, you need to know the old.
Vsevolod Medvedev:
- Hardly anyone can say that tradition is bad. Tradition is good and without it it is impossible. But we need to create new traditions, because if the old ones prevail, we will perish and we will be unable to do anything. And if we do something new, then we can turn into a tradition.
Ilnar Akhtyamov:
- The techniques that we use are not similar to those that were taught to us earlier. The methodology is based on the author's work and partly on the work of foreign architectural schools. If we talk about any connection with regional origins, this is, first of all, the experience of VKHUTEMAS, Ladovsky. Another equally important source of inspiration that we traditionally use is the techniques and methods of classical and modern cinema.
Oscar Mamleev
- Very interesting answers to this question. Despite the apparent difference, it seems to me that the vector is directed in one direction. The last issue that I would like to discuss is integration into the international educational system. I will read the message Valeria Anatolyevich Nefedov, Doctor of Architecture, Professor of St. Petersburg University. He very actively "connects" Russian and foreign institutions, arranges educational trips abroad and in every possible way promotes such contacts. “Overcoming the currently existing costly construction absurdity and reckless filling of urban areas with morally outdated architecture, an inadequate environment is impossible without a vertical change in the meaning of architectural education. Education should stop catching up with practice or end with a permanent clarification of history, and begin to focus on creating advanced models of buildings and environments, shifting the emphasis on the study of the latest technologies. The experiment and the concept should become the most advanced components of the full-length project part of the master's thesis, ensuring the formation of alternative project thinking, and only then a real master's program, aimed at the future, integrated into the international educational space, will be able to fill domestic practice with specialists who are able to overcome old norms, regulations, finding there are new arguments for this”.
Nikita Tokarev:
- Perhaps this is the simplest question for us, since we have implemented a partnership with the London Metropolitan University in our programs. We were initially focused on integration into the global architectural education. Our students receive British diplomas, exactly the same as their counterparts in London. This allows students to move between schools, expands their choice of further careers in Russia and other countries. But at the same time, which seems to me very important, the integration of educational systems does not mean literal copying, tracing of one education in another. Education grows largely from local needs and local situations. Because no matter what the international school is, it is still in some place, and this place influences its profile. That is why we teach in Russian, and not in English, it was fundamentally for us, and the British program, on the basis of which we built our Master's and Bachelor's programs, we significantly changed, transformed, actually writing a new course, realizing that those students who come to us, those teachers who will teach with us, this is not the same as in London, Prague or Buenos Aires. And the problems and challenges facing Russian architecture are not quite the same as those facing the architecture of other countries. Here we are trying to strike a balance between unification, transparent borders and a response specifically to the needs of Russian architecture. I hope we succeed in achieving this.
Konstantin Kiyanenko:
- Several years ago Valery Nefedov and I did a study of architectural education in Russia. The question that Nefedov was interested in was how integrated our schools are into foreign education. The results of this survey were published, including on the website of the Union of Architects of Russia, they still hang there. The overwhelming majority of public schools have no foreign contacts - with the exception of those in the capital and border areas, such as the Faculty of Architecture and Design of the Pacific University in Khabarovsk, which travels to China. On average, there are from one to three teachers per school, who to some extent participate in international contacts. These are the same people who have something to say to their colleagues. We researched student exchange, participation of our students in joint seminars. Our architectural school is a black spot on the world map. Everyone is integrated with everyone, and our school is a completely independent structure. This is very bad, because one of the main tools we have is contact with the world. If we talk about my school, since it is tiny, provincial, there are serious problems with integration. A couple of people go somewhere, meet students, participate in teachers' forums. The reasons are the problem of language, the problem of money, the fact that the reform of our education during the transition to the European standard does not implement one of its main components - the individualization of students' curricula. With us, both students studied in groups and study. And in order to exchange students, it is necessary that the student has the opportunity to collect an individual "loan" in a foreign architecture school according to an individual program. And this system does not work, because our administrative structure, departments, are often not ready to work with each student separately, each to draw up his own curriculum (what tutors do in foreign schools). Therefore, until this administrative problem is resolved, we will not move anywhere. Integration presupposes a mutual process: not only we come to them, but they also come to us. And in order for this process to be reciprocal, we need to have something to offer for this exchange. Here, individual talents and creative students are not enough. It is necessary that our architectural schools have an informational and creative potential for exchange, and very few actually have this.
Oscar Mamleev
- This is probably one of the most difficult moments in exchange programs. Both parties must be interested. If this is a one-sided game, then one of the partners loses the desire to participate. The level of the teacher should be such that he, having taken a group of students at a foreign university and working according to his own methodology, could compete with other foreign professors. Now these are just some kind of tourist trips, with acquaintance with the delights of this or that city. This is where it all ends.
Marko Mihich-Eftic:
- MARCHI is friends with various institutions in the framework of the exchange, but these connections are very selective and random. In our group, we try to focus our attention on working with Moscow, and in this regard, we are not traveling anywhere. Attending events at Strelka, participating in a joint project with the Berlage Institute, I saw nothing new for myself. I realized that the way we teach is similar to how it is done abroad. And in this regard, the example of the guys from the previous graduation who left for other countries shows that they adapted very easily. At the same time, the students who came to us from abroad, on the contrary, very difficult to fit into what we were doing. We were faced with the fact that they are from different schools, but some kind of "one-sided".
Vsevolod Medvedev:
- There is an international department in MARCHI that deals with exchanges. MARCHI is difficult to integrate, difficult to receive, difficult to give. I believe that the student should integrate himself. And it would be better to go to study, you can't think of a better integration. There are examples when our graduates graduated from foreign universities, for example, they studied with Patrick Schumacher, then they work well and are in great demand. But there are also not very successful examples, when a student leaves, and there is no result, although the preparation is sufficient. There is also an experience of communication in Washington, which was somewhat surprised by the level of training of students. You need to integrate yourself, with the help of a teacher, the Internet, whatever. We decided to integrate our group directly into modern architecture. We took them to China. We saw a lot, talked. When they tried to establish relationships with a giant university in Guangzhou, they could not get in touch, it is not clear why.
Ilnar Akhtyamov:
- Our University has an international department that is actively working in this direction. The University has connections and partnerships with a number of foreign universities, and has a double degree program. However, the approaches of partner universities and ours do not coincide, so we have no interaction. There is essentially no direct integration, it is more indirect. We use other effective methods of integration into the global architectural space, these are foreign internships and participation in international architectural competitions, both conceptual and design in nature, and graphic. Modern technologies in this regard open up a lot of opportunities for students. Our studio actively participates in various major competitions, students' works are finalists of the ArchiPrix and ArchiPrix Russia, IS Arch, the Catalan Institute's Leading Competition, etc.
Oscar Mamleev
- Time flies so fast, a lot changes. Now I remember that over the past few years, about ten of my students went to study in different countries: England, Germany, Holland. And always, when the guys ask where it is better to go to study, I have only one answer: you must absolutely clearly understand how you position yourself on the labor market and what niche you would like to occupy. There is a very strong difference between educational systems in different countries. For example, in England, those schools that are branded - AA, Bartlett - train smart people, such dreamers who are able to predict the future. In Germany, the emphasis is on technical disciplines, the study of new technologies. It is also important to understand the level of education, while we do not have a clear idea of the requirements for bachelors and masters, their professional responsibility. In fact, everything is very simple. A bachelor is a craft, a person turns out to be an architect who can go to work in a design organization, having certain skills, knowledge of constructive, compositional issues, he can be entrusted with performing work. A master is a generator of ideas, a person who can lead his workshop and be responsible for its products.
If someone wants to ask a question to any of us, I remind you: Kazan, two people from Moscow Architectural Institute, Strelka, Vologda, MARSH.
Question
- Is there an opportunity [for leading teachers and practitioners] to lecture at one of the provincial universities?
Oscar Mamleev
- I am ready to answer this question myself. Opportunities and desire are there, Unfortunately, the main problem is weak budget funding. The annual budget of Harvard exceeds the total budget for education in Russia. For the last two years I have been developing the Archiprix project in Russia, and thanks to Armstrong, in 2014 we visited 10 Russian universities with lectures. Not only students came, but also architects. It was free for the institutes. Unfortunately, politics sometimes creates problems, but we are looking for new opportunities to renew this practice.
Question:
- I don't understand why you need these lectures? You can go to the Internet, give lectures, listen to lectures. A lecture as a source of knowledge is not very relevant today, because this knowledge can be obtained in other ways - faster, more conveniently. Lectures should simply be inspiring. For example, at a public lecture at Strelka, a celebrity sometimes does not say anything interesting or new, but he gathers 1,500 people who came just to see him, because he is a living legend. Five years ago, when I was a student, we tried to organize lectures by leading architects at the institute, because we lacked information. But in five years, everything has changed. This is not a priority problem today. It is much more interesting to work together when the teacher comes and teaches from his own experience. There is a deeper integration here than just lecturing, telling.
Oscar Mamleev
- I respect your opinion, and in some ways you are right. But there are different aspects of this issue. Academician Asmolov, head of the Department of Psychology at Moscow State University, talks about cognitive education, i.e. thinking education. It defines the role of the teacher as a "navigator" and the student as a "search engine". At one time, this approach defined the task of a teacher for me. I cannot know everything, but my task is to explain to the student where he can find the answer to his question. And you probably meant it. But there is also the concept of live communication. When you receive information on the Internet, this is one thing, you do not feel this contact. An example from our trip to Vologda. Architect Levon Airapetov, a man of out-of-the-box thinking, told the students about his "kitchen", how his "smart" works. It was lively, interesting and unusual, and it will never be replaced by looking at the Internet, for example, at his Russian pavilion at EXPO 2010 in Shanghai. During these trips, wonderful architects talked about architecture, life, love … This cannot be replaced by any Internet.
Nikita Tokarev:
- I am with some caution regarding correspondence education, primarily in the field of architecture. Education is not just the transfer of practical knowledge and skills, it is, first of all, the formation of a system of values. Today we need some computer programs, tomorrow - others, the day after tomorrow - the third, but the values remain with us. And how far the formation of the value system is possible remotely is a question. It seems to me that within the team of teachers and students, these values are formed, supported and transmitted. And the school is not just lectures and seminars, it is the people who surround us. Whether it is possible to form such a community of like-minded people connected by common values in the worldwide network is also very controversial, it may be so, or it may not.
Question
- Your attitude to theoretical disciplines and their importance in training architects. Why aren't specialists from theoretical departments involved in design work?
Oscar Mamleev
- I'll start a little from afar. Colleagues, including many teachers of the Moscow Architectural Institute, whom I love and respect very much, asked me: "Why didn't you take our works for this exhibition?" But there is a limitation on the area of the exposition and the specifics of the works that we wanted to show. One colleague was surprised that I did not exhibit one of the works of our workshop, which she liked. I replied that the work does not meet the requirements of our research project, where the main thing is theoretical substantiation. You had the opportunity to look at works from different universities, for example, work in Samara, head Vitaly Samogorov, he studied with an English student who graduated from a bachelor's degree in Britain. And this work looks like a serious scientific study. In any design department there are people who keep their finger on the pulse, understand what is happening in the world, can explain to students and help them solve social, political issues, and not just compositional and architectural ones. And, if their knowledge is not enough, specialists from other departments are invited. Division into specializations, i.e. narrowing the professional horizons, I never liked it. It is important to have a wide and in-depth knowledge when a person is able to solve problems in a complex way. In this regard, the approach of training at Strelka seems to me interesting. Although MARCHI, to whom I gave more than 35 years and love him, has its advantages. I focus on my experience. When we do course projects, I invite, without any formal agreements, some of my friends who know a certain problematic nuance better than me, and they help not only on theoretical issues.
Konstantin Kiyanenko:
- One example. Several years ago, I was at the University of California. And one girl spoke in American English about the Moscow housing market. And I was so surprised that an American student was interested in the Russian market, and then it turned out that she was a former student at Moscow Architectural Institute. I asked her how she felt at an American school. She replied that everything was fine with practice, but two years had been spent eliminating her theoretical illiteracy. That is, underestimating the theory in our school is a disaster. The significance of the theory is not that it broadens a person's horizons; the theory builds intellectual filters through which a person views practice. Therefore, if there is no theory, there is no practice, which, unfortunately, is evidenced by the state of our architecture. The issue of the development of theory, in my opinion, is connected with the issue of inviting teachers. I think that a high-quality lecture in the field of humanitarian knowledge, in the field of cultural studies, cannot be replaced by any YouTube. The live presence of a class theorist at a lecture is an irreplaceable thing. Therefore, if we talk about integration, we still do not use the entire resource of our teachers from other schools. The problem with money is that it is not easy to invite a person. I gave lectures in Kazakhstan for two years, where they paid me $ 150 an hour.
Question
- What skills should an architect have?
Marko Mihich-Eftic:
- It seems to me that the main feature of an architect is that he must be inquisitive, he must want to know how the world works, disassemble, and then assemble it. Every new order, every new object is a unique thing, every time you invent something. This person must be resourceful. In fact, this is the question - what is architecture, because the profession is so wide that anyone can find a place in it. A person who knows how to make only utopian graphics, and without utopian graphics there are no utopian constructed objects. Dry drawing, when working documentation is released, is also important, without it there is no building. Thanks to these people, buildings appear. Everyone can find themselves in architecture, someone with creativity, someone with technical skills. We select students not even by their portfolio, but by talking to them, because the project is largely done by the teachers. The important thing is how a person talks to you, if there is fire in him, everything else is unimportant. You don't need to stamp the same people, you need to help them get out if they want to.
Konstantin Kiyanenko:
- The questions are so detailed that it was necessary to start with them. The requirements for a university graduate are formulated by our professional workshop, the Union of Architects of Russia, and this is a ubiquitous practice all over the world that is exactly how it is: in Europe, Great Britain, and North America, the requirements for architectural education are formulated by a professional workshop. And then these requirements turn into a model of a specialist, and a model of a specialist through the educational process - into the specialist himself. Our Union has developed these requirements, but they have not yet been adopted. As for creativity, I recall the statement of Glazychev, who said that "we need a large number of architects, but this does not mean that we need tens of thousands of certified creators, we need tens of thousands of professionals."
Ilnar Akhtyamov:
- An architect must have two components. The first is to be able to think. It is very lively to react to everything that is happening around him, how the society lives, what needs it has, what happens to the person and society, so that later you can model the situation, pose a problem and find a solution. And for this first part there should be a second - an individual one: the ability of self-expression.
Question:
- How does the integration take place when moving from university to university?
Konstantin Kiyanenko:
- Diversity of architecture schools and makes integration expedient. Therefore, we are not talking about the unification of the content of education, we are talking about the unification of the structure in such a way that a student can get a job at another university, then go back to the first one, get his "credits" on the record book and continue his studies at this university or in any friend. It is only in our country that it is accepted that a person finishes a bachelor's or master's degree in one educational institution. This is considered bad form all over the world. Therefore, the problem lies in the lack of organizational prerequisites for exchange.
Oscar Mamleev
- I thank everyone for their participation. It seems to me that a very interesting dialogue turned out, and a very interesting company gathered around this table. In the finale, I would like to fulfill a pleasant mission. At the Zodchestvo festival this year, the curatorial project "Research" was awarded a diploma from the Union of Architects of Russia. And since most of everything that you see here was created by the teachers and students of the MARCH school, all the creativity of this exhibition, the organization of the space, the content, I am happy and grateful to present the diploma to the director of MARSH, Nikita Tokarev.
Nikita Tokarev
- In turn, I want to thank Oskar Raulievich, who, being the curator of this section, invited us to participate in the exhibition, and thank the Union of Architects for hosting this exhibition, that we received such a wonderful space. Without this support, we would not have been able to show what we have shown. I hope that this is only the beginning of our cooperation, and at the next festival we will occupy the central hall or its colonnade.
