"And we are left with circles on the water"
Andrey Makarevich, Going Down to the Great River
"The statue was like statues"
A. and B. Strugatsky, Doomed City
A week ago, I went to Borovitskaya Square to see how it is there with the new monument and landscaping from AI-architects. The square was crowded: visitors, mostly of pre-retirement age, took pictures around the monument, discussed the high reliefs behind it, visually proving the eternal popularity of the narrative. People also gathered on the opposite side of Mokhovaya: some were figuring out how to get to the other side of the square, others - what kind of palace was it on the hill above them. Pashkov's house, Pashkov's house … Who is Pashkov? Elderly visitors were diluted by groups of young men in jackets with the inscription Russia on the back. What was happening was like a spontaneous, albeit unusually quiet, communist rally.
The Military Historical Society, which erected the monument, tried and painted the firewall of the house opposite the faces of Minin and Pozharsky - both the leaders of the second militia and the bronze prince have a similar facial expression, some tension arises between the princes Dmitry Mikhailovich and Vladimir Svyatoslavich, big round eyes are detached look somewhere obliquely upwards - no other than expecting the arrival of the space race of the bearded men from Pelevin's new book. A soldier from Treptow Park, painted on a nearby firewall, rounds off the picture completely: Borovitskaya Square has been ideologically developed; wherever the Kremlin or Pashkov's house is, monumental propaganda works with might and main, supported, as rightly
noticed Rustam Rakhmatullin, statues of Alexander I and Patriarch Hermogenes "also with a cross" in the Alexander Garden.
So much has been said about the features of the resulting sculpture by Salavat Shcherbakov that I don't want to repeat it. It is a bit large, and it is unclear whether the disc was modified after the height was reduced or left as it was. It is densely covered with ornaments in the spirit of realistic historicism of the 19th century, from which the sculpture has gone not far, except that the 19th century did not allow itself, it seems, to erect monuments of this size so close to the viewer, but even here much is explainable: this prince is the result of a rather mechanistic conditional transfer of St. Vladimir, sung by Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov, its conditional appropriation by Moscow and in this sense repeats the history of the construction of temples - New Jerusalem, only with the opposite sign: if the New Jerusalem elevates the Holy Land and worship it, then the transfer here, apparently, does not imply veneration the original source. After all, it was necessary to request a model of the monument in Kiev, then the transfer would be more accurate. Patriarch Nikon asked for a model of the Jerusalem temple at one time. In a word, the monument is controversial, as it is shamefully defined by those who do not want to argue and abuse.
Thus, the discourse was divided into three roughly three streams: some, due to their official duties, are promoting the monument, others scold and debate - these are the most, this is the main branch. The third is the smallest: here they praise the improvement of the "Nixon's Lawn", intonationally separating it from the "controversial monument". And they did not realize that these things are quite inseparable, they are already together. But it is also clear why: the monument is bad, the landscaping is good, they must be divided according to their meaning, otherwise, as Vysotsky said about Robin Hood, “the film is bad, the ballads are good, so the ballads must be removed.”
So Nixon's Lawn, everybody
the houses on which were demolished in 1972, after a million torments: plans to build a depository for the Kremlin museums and princely wanderings, are now equipped with a monument. Moskomarkhitektury held a progressive competition, where it invited 20 young and promising architects. They were given only a week to work. Seven bureaus reached the final, AI-architects won: Alexander Tomashenko and Ivan Kolmanok - and this is a great success in any case, to make a square in the very center of Moscow. The project was implemented quickly enough, its main idea was to symbolically depict circles on the water, from which the baptized prince allegedly emerges. In this connection, a seditious thought arises: is it possible to equip the square with a mechanism that would remove the monument under the ground - conditional water, and push it up, symbolically baptizing a pagan, when passing by, say, government delegations. It would be very story-driven, on the one hand - deus ex machina, on the other - the ensemble for the rest of the time would be just a landscaped area … But these are fantasies, of course, who will dig such a deep hole.
The architects proposed to make a small pond-pool around the pedestal of Vladimir, so that the monument would be wrapped in steam, at night - glowing. The idea of getting out of the water thus became literal. But it didn’t work with the pool, although there would be an excellent roll call with the former “Moscow” pool - many still remember how steam is and l in winter. We limited ourselves to lighting, in general, lighting in this project plays the most creative role and the architects, according to them, put a lot of effort into not simplifying the project during implementation. We calculated the geometry of the light bulbs mounted in the grass, highlighted the steps resting on a reinforced concrete structure, laid the possibility of different programs for flashing light bulbs - festive, for example. Around the pedestal, instead of a pool, a light contour was made, similar to the halo-hoops from Vrubel's paintings - somewhere it was already called a halo. On a rainy or snowy day, the light from the ring should create flickering drops around the prince, who symbolically emerges from the water.
So - it is impossible to tear apart the improvement from the monument, any conscientious work, and in the case of the improvement, it is obviously conscientious and creative, in our time should not only take into account, but also live the context, pass it through itself, comprehend and transform, react. And such a context, which is in the very center of the site and for which the improvement is actually being done - a self-respecting architect cannot but take into account, this is not even a context, but a plot, the main theme. Therefore, it is impossible to distance oneself, although there is no merger either. As already mentioned, even information flows - one powerful, about the monument, and the other weak, about the square - run in parallel, the second with the proviso: "you can argue as much as you like."
What happened? It turned out, to put it mildly, contrasting. Like Pashkov's house and monument are things from different worlds, and that is why it is weak about to spoil the house for a monument, it is impossible in principle, from the house like water off a duck's back, it is better - the delight of people who came to look at the monument and knew nothing about the house, and maybe for the first time really saw it - one of the confirmation of this. Although it does not mean, of course, that it was not worth fighting for the purity and beauty of Borovitskaya Square. So, a square and a monument, like a square and a house, are things from different dimensions and orders.
The monument is archaic for 130 years with an overkill, ideological. Both the Moscow and Kiev monuments are examples of Russophilia, which has now survived a century and a half. The square, as well as, in general, the house are examples of Western culture, that part of it that is perfectly in step with the times and therefore is of high quality and attractive. Their connection is mechanical, not a connection, but coexistence, similar to what is happening in society: some with cabbage soup in their beard and shaking rusty muscles … mmm, bronze swords, others on segways among lindens. When meeting, usually on the Internet, they sometimes swear terribly, but there is another position - ignoring each other, as well as small things. If something, for example, a monument, cannot be avoided, then at least the square should be made according to European standards and for people. But conflict-free. Envelop in shining spray, once again show the passing government delegation - both Muscovites, of course, and Muscovites - the possibilities of a modern urbanistic approach to urban space, how laconic and impressive it is. Usually, in our reality, bearded and urban propaganda exist separately, not really noticing each other, but here they come together very closely and seem to manage not to conflict.
But first, for such a monument the archaic version of the staging is more organic: with marble staircases, balustrades, bronze lanterns, boards, capitals. Something similar to the terraces surrounding the HHS. The previous project of the IHSP was closer to this ideal, but still remained too laconic, although it vividly demonstrated the small size of the slide that the prince got.
Secondly, a small matter, but a good one is in a subordinate position, literally and figuratively "at the feet" of the bronze monument. The architects proposed to make a ground crossing in front of the metro - the idea was not supported. Therefore, the idea of arranging the existing spontaneous path was not fully realized, rounded off into a route. The path must be mentioned separately. In the modern urban culture, which began to form somewhere in the 70s - 80s, including in Moscow, the arrangement of spontaneous paths is one of the important ideas. Ideally, this culture does not even direct the streams, but itself follows them, manifesting populism, surprising in our times, the reincarnation of the idea of the 19th century, when people are not looked down upon, trying to deceive them, stupid, or, conversely, teach, organize and lead. In the spontaneous will of the people, which is expressed, for example, in the well-trodden short path, they see a certain ideal of perfection, in this case practicality. It's hard for us to walk around - we go straight ahead, and the architect makes this decision, well, practically as the will of God - which means that the road is needed here. This logic is very nice, and, I repeat, it is already more than forty years old, probably. She is like the cherry on the cake decorates different projects. But it is completely opposite to the idea of a ceremonial monument, which must be approached directly by the main staircase. Here it turned out that the former folk trail, and now the moderately ceremonial staircase with signs of an amphitheater, approaches the monument from the side: the pretentious monument stood on the folk trail, but somehow sideways. It is impossible to approach from the front point, stroking the full face: which, of course, is primarily the result of the transfers - they planned to erect the monument over the river, but put it on the lawn, to which even approach from Volkhonka, where the prince is looking, is really impossible, but only to look. All canons have been violated, and of course, because of public opinion, collection of signatures against - i.e. here, too, the people's will played its part, but it went across the monument, so it did not work organically.
By the way, a comparison of the Kiev and Moscow monuments suggests itself: the one, of the time of the Uvarov triad, is more modest: the prince holds the cross, but takes off his cap in front of the city (Dnieper? Land?). No sword whatsoever. Our "Moscow" prince doesn’t break his hat - it’s worthless, apparently, and his sword is practically at the ready. If you look at the pose, then in the next movement he must throw the cross and grab the sword with his right hand. Oh. The fact that, with a rather ridiculous setting, the monument now looks exactly to the south-west, i.e. exactly to Kiev, also a fact. The monument is the result of great pathos and many subsequent compromises: on the one hand, you want to dress up in brocade and velvet and somehow not break your hats in front of the people, and on the other hand, there are many circumstances. So at least we will not make a pedestrian crossing. So it was not possible to make the urban development project in full measure, it was not possible to build city connections.
So the curious are wandering along the sidewalk in front of the Pashkov House, looking for a transition that they did not make. The shortest way to go is from the exit from the underground passage in front of the Kutafya Tower, along Manezhnaya Street, whose courtyards the architects also proposed to open in some way, and also failed - to walk 370 m. Or from the Borovitskaya metro station to the left, skirting the same passage, to Manezhnaya - 710 m - although between the exit from the metro and the monument 95 m in a straight line and a ground crossing would make the path the shortest. You can go from the metro to the right, where, after crossing Znamenka and Volkhonka, go down the stairs under the Stone Bridge and go under it - 670 m, but we are walking? Here, the ideas of urbanism, which ideally seeks to do well for a pedestrian and turns the city into an open-air get-together, come into conflict with the idea of worship: Vladimir is a saint, and therefore, in theory, his image can be a subject of pilgrimage, although of course the type such a pilgrimage is basically Catholic, but unimportant. And if urban studies think about short and convenient paths so that they have the strength to hang out, then a pilgrimage, as you know, requires a long walk on foot - to Kiev or Jerusalem. In this case, the appearance of the monument shortens the path to Kiev, but it is wrong to completely simplify the pilgrim's path, and the idea of shortening two minutes from the metro does not fit into it. The pilgrim should approach around, respectfully; and not to run past at a trot along the path and no longer hang out. Now at the monument, people are mainly photographed and examining the reliefs, but this is the effect of the opening of a new attraction. You can stay here only for making speeches or listening to an excursion. There are no benches, and there is clearly no place for hippies and even hipsters under the noses of the Kremlin guard. In fact, the main route is along the steps with wreaths for laying or with a guide from the Alexander Garden, from Hermogenes and Alexander I, according to the plan of monumental propaganda-2. So the specificity of the European type of landscaping is changing, losing its parts. But it does not cease to be a contrast to the monument: it has long been discussed on the net that anything can be in the center of such a square: the idea of circles on the water is so abstract that it is neutral to content. And this is the only way to survive: being neutral to the content.
