The Quality Standard project consisted of several elements. The exposition at Zodchestvo 2017 - its main "material" part - consisted of installations and art objects created or selected by a number of leading Russian architects in response to the curator's request to materialize their idea of the "quality standard" of architecture. In parallel, we recorded a series of video interviews, where we invited the project participants to formulate their views on the criteria for assessing quality and how to achieve them in practice. The last in this row - in terms of mention, but as it turned out, not at all in importance - was the public discussion: the architects discussed how the views and principles of each of them influence - or do not affect - the situation with the quality of architecture in Russia.
The experiment on the collision of individual points of view was successful. On many aspects, the participants in the discussion, among whom were Andrei Asadov, Timur Bashkaev, Yuliy Borisov, Ilya Mukosey, Valeria Preobrazhenskaya and Levon Airapetov, Natalia Sidorova, Sergei Skuratov, agreed with each other, but on a number of issues the opinions diverged radically. The conversation centered around the question of how and for what the architect should be responsible, being only part of the system for implementing urban planning decisions made not by him, forced to take into account the wishes of the customer - but at the same time bearing the burden of moral responsibility to society, which, in turn, evaluates the results of his work on a purely pragmatic and extremely simplified in an artistic sense scale. Many problems of Russian architects cannot be solved, and will not be solved in the foreseeable future. Only the next generations of architects, well-educated, understanding the main task of architecture - to make people's lives better, able to agree on something, not to step back on something and defend their ideals - may change the situation.
We publish a recording and transcript of the discussion.
video recording of the discussion
Filming and editing: Sergey Kuzmin
Elena Petukhova: First, I will introduce myself. My name is Elena Petukhova, I am the director of special projects of the Internet portal Archi.ru. And the meaning of special projects is the organization of various events that allow you to highlight some important, significant issues of architectural life and give architects an opportunity to speak out about them.
The Quality Standard project has two key goals. Firstly, at the suggestion of the curators of the Zodchestvo festival Nikita and Andrey Asadov, I conducted some kind of research - what is quality, quality in architecture. And I, trying to imagine how to approach this issue, realized that there are two interesting points. Firstly, each architect is inside himself, inside his “I” - how he is, what criteria, on what scale he assesses the quality of the architecture that he sees, which he himself creates, and so on, how you can work with it. The first half of this project was devoted to what the assessment is based on and what it consists of, the assessment of the quality of architecture, the subjective assessment of the architect.
The second part is how this inner can be taken out and presented, shown outside. The exhibition project gave us the opportunity to do this in the format of installations and art objects. Of course, there is another way to bring this feeling out - direct practical professional activity. What else can brighter, more accurately and more clearly show on the basis of what quality criteria an architect lives, thinks and creates than his projects, than his buildings? And this transfer of ideals, values, sensations outside in a practical format collides with a certain reality,in which we live; we are all subject to those specific features that we also all know. And what's going on here? How do these quality criteria collide with reality, how are they being transformed, and what compromises, what concessions do architects have to make? But when I conducted interviews with architects, with project participants, I realized that they see the situation a little differently. And the problem as such for many does not exist. Therefore, I suggested holding a round table where practitioners, those architects who agreed to take part in our project, will meet. Does this problem of architecture quality exist, especially in Russia?
As they say, there are two troubles in Russia - roads and fools. I would also add to this a chronic inability to build. It is inappropriate to speak about the ability to design in the presence of our speakers, because all the participants in the "Standard of Quality" project are people who design efficiently and build efficiently. That is, they are, one might say, apologists for high-quality architecture. And I am extremely grateful that they agreed to take part in the project and in our conversation today. So, this is a constant given - that the roads are bad, there are fools, no one knows how to build, that any project that you create (no matter how interesting, grandiose, fantastic idea is, no matter how carefully you develop it, no matter how much you pick subtle and correct materials), is still doomed to be realized - if not qualitatively, then at least well. “Good” is probably ideal. Maybe I am now trying to reason from my own point of view; I really hope that you will either confirm my impressions or deny them. So, in this situation, a stable psychological defense should be developed, if it does not work out to build efficiently, well, it will not, even if you break into a cake, it will not work, not here, not now, well, nothing. And in this situation, perhaps, there is simply some leveling of the value of quality in architecture, it all comes down to some kind of certain professional rules, principles that the architect must observe. And everything else is reality, like roads, like fools. There is no quality architecture. And that's not a problem, it's just a constant.
So this is the first question on which I would like to ask all our participants to speak. In your opinion, is the problem of the quality of architecture in Russia - does it exist, is it real? Or we, architectural journalists, invented it in order to provoke you into an interesting conversation for us about what is valuable, what is important, and so on, but in fact it is just a job? And high-quality or low-quality architecture is just your job. If it's not difficult, let's start with Sergei Aleksandrovich Skuratov.
Sergey Skuratov: I think that the problem that Lena Petukhova has been talking about for a very long time is, of course, a very narrow problem that is being solved in the process of many problems facing our society. Therefore, if we talk about whether the problem of the quality of construction or the quality of decisions made in architecture is the most important problem or an urgent problem that is being discussed here, under this metal vault, I think it is the most insignificant problem. I think it is a little far-fetched. Because all of us, from college and beyond, in the process of our professional development, we all learn to make the right decisions. And at some point we realize that, having learned to make the right decisions, we are faced with a very simple problem. The tasks that we have to solve are initially incorrectly formulated, incorrectly set, we receive incorrect initial data, and we cannot do anything about it. And we understand that the problem is not in us, not in our ability to solve certain problems very well; we are able to make very high-quality drawings, think over everything intelligently to the smallest detail, this is not our problem, we do it all perfectly. Many architects, there are a lot of them, they all do it impeccably, well, because this is not a very big science, in general, - to master the secrets of professional skill. The average architect does this in a period of 10 to 15 years. This is not medicine. But in general, the adoption of urban planning decisions, and in general some fateful decisions, which are implemented by architects, is the main problem. That is, I am talking about the fact that architecture is not included in the value system of our society, it is not one of its most important postulates, the most important elements of life. This is a serious problem. But if we dig deeper, then in a sense we can just shrug our hands, because if we dig deeply, deeply, we will not pull anything out of this hole, because Russia in this sense is unique in its carelessness, in its dislike to their territory, due to their inability to equip their Russian spaces. This is such a mentality, this is a given. And it is very difficult to do something about it. To be honest, I don’t know any recipes for teaching our self-hating, hating each other, such a senseless and merciless Russia, to be an intelligent Europe. I don't know, I have no recipes. The only thing that remains for us in this situation is to simply turn into some kind of individual fighters. And this is not the most enviable role, because the struggle takes away our strength, instead of really focusing on some interesting new ideas or on teaching society to live beautifully, live well, live wisely in spaces, apartments, on the streets, in houses. In general, we are fighting the country itself, fighting its monstrous unprofessionalism, laziness, unwillingness to develop, unwillingness to negotiate, unwillingness to say "yes"; we hear around "no", "no", "no", "you are not the same", "you are not like that", "you are not with us", "you are against us." This is endless aggression, endless confrontation. And all this is expressed in architecture, because architecture cannot exist separately from society. And so, of course, when the question of quality came up, I said: is it worth talking about this, about the quality of architecture, about the quality of construction? It is more interesting to talk about something completely different - can architecture in general pull this society out of the swamp, and in what way? I will give the microphone to other people. Thank.
Timur Bashkaev: As always, Elena, everyone answers not your questions, but the most interesting ones. Therefore, I will also answer my own questions, which is interesting to me.
Elena Petukhova: In fact, I called you to talk about what you find interesting.
Timur Bashkaev: I agree with Sergei that it is not very interesting for professionals to listen to our statements. Therefore, I am not referring to architects; I see a lot of young guys - I'll tell them. There is a problem: they build badly; whatever they think, the quality is ugly. I have my GAP at work, he says: “Timur, well, what to invent? They will defile everyone, disfigure, let's make it easier, and fuss less. This is one person. The second is a young, very talented girl; she just has real depression: whatever is invented, everyone does it, that it’s just a real depression, a real one, human. These are two poles. And of course both are wrong. And I, addressing the young, propose a scenario that I have worked out for myself. I understand that I cannot guess in advance what will be done well from the project and what will be bad. It is always a mystery and a miracle. Zaryadye has already shown this: what seems simple - they do it terribly, and what seems unrealistic - they do it normally. It's a miracle every time, and it's almost impossible to guess. Therefore, if we initially simplify everything, then there will be no miracle, if we come up with something complicated - they will disfigure; it's depression. This is our cross. Unfortunately, each of us will name dozens of these tragedies, and maybe hundreds in our lives. And if we do not do this, if we do not experience these tragedies, then there will be no miracles. So I suggest that young people still dare, hope, fight and not get depressed. Thank.
Ilya Mukosey: If we raise the question of the quality of architecture, then the quality of architecture consists of two components: technical quality, which in fact is design quality, construction quality, and aesthetic quality. It is very difficult to talk about aesthetic quality, since it is a matter of preferences, a matter of taste. True, for example, the Moscow Arch Council is trying to cut off some structures of poor quality from an aesthetic point of view. Since this is a collegial body, it may be relatively objective. All the same, I think that even if we interview the members of the Arch Council, they will not be able (not all, at least for certain, will be able to) formulate some explicit verbalized criteria. Although, nevertheless, conclusions are always written, and there are always complaints about the functionality, some other things. Apart from the aesthetic quality, the conversation about the quality of architecture should be narrowed down and talk about the quality of construction. As for the quality of construction, here … You said at the beginning about the roads; in general, the material quality of everything that is created in Russia is the same as the roads (on average). By the way, the statement itself is a bit paradoxical. The problem is fools and roads. Is the problem fools and bad roads or bad fools and roads? We have the wrong fools and the right roads. So what? And the quality is also wrong. In fact, perhaps, to some extent, this bad quality of architecture can be elevated into a kind of national identity. Back to the project that you also did here once. I will not name it, there are quite respected and talented architects, theorists of architecture, who are doing exactly this - the poeticization of Russian disorder, which is expressed, among other things, in architecture. It is clear that Western-style architecture, which requires high precision in the implementation of the project, is not suitable for this paradigm. Here you need to work with the appropriate material. There should be a croaker, burnt brick, at best - straw, dung. I finally found the answer to a question that I did not find then, by drawing a square and inviting everyone to see for themselves the uniqueness of architecture in it. So this is it, it seems to me. This lack of technical quality expresses the national identity of our architecture. It seems to me, for example, that Andrey's project, exhibited in the gallery, with two bricks, is just about that. Maybe I'm wrong. But there, after all, both bricks are bad, crooked.
Elena Petukhova: Ilya, did I understand correctly that you don't see the problem? It seems to you that, on the contrary, it is a blessing.
Ilya Mukosey: Just about the problem that everyone sees, they said a lot here and will say more. I want the positive side … You need to add a drop of honey to this ointment barrel.
Andrey Asadov: About bricks, by the way, it was Nikita's idea, as always accurate and wise. This is just such an illustration without words of the theme of the festival - "Quality now". We took two bricks with a hundred-year gap: 1917 or a little earlier, from the old masonry of the dismantled outbuilding of the Moscow Architectural Institute, and an ordinary, rough, standard brick, already a modern extension of some kind. And such a visual comparison without words; both there and there - this is an ordinary element of a building structure. And just the level of quality in different eras.
In fact, I suspected and am convinced that this topic will definitely not leave anyone indifferent. That is why we made it the title theme of this year. I myself have a positivist vision of this problem. Firstly, I believe that an architect, within the framework of his place, can solve problems around him, at least be the initiator of such a high-quality result. For myself, I formulated three simple criteria for how this result can be achieved under existing conditions. The first is to generate the most unkillable idea in the project. That is, such a strong, clear, distinct, well-readable without unnecessary distractions, unkillable idea that is difficult to spoil in the future in the process of implementation. The second is to discuss with all participants in the process, in a dialogue mode to show them their benefits, to each in their own area, which they can achieve if they implement the solutions inherent in the original project. And third - already as a director, conductor of an orchestra in the process of implementation, to track, encourage, inspire, as it happens in my personal experience in the process of implementation of construction projects; encouraging everyone involved and really making compromises very gently, while immediately monitoring whether the compromise is beneficial. I am always open to all counter suggestions, but if it does not go against the original idea. Sometimes the ideas proposed in the implementation process, on the contrary, enrich and give something new, interesting in the project. And gently but adamantly pursue their own line and achieve, in any case, a high-quality end result.
Natalia Sidorova: A lot has already been said here, and one cannot but agree with almost every word, especially with the latest recipes, which we also try to adhere to. Architecture and the quality of architecture is a complex concept that is made up of many, many factors, and this, of course, is not limited to the quality of construction, this is only a small part. Yes, indeed, the raw data is important; The most important thing, probably, is to formulate the initially correct questions for the project: is it necessary to build something here, how to build it, how. And in this, as Sergei Alexandrovich said, we have a big problem. We, architects, as we believe, answer all questions with high quality, but the component of the environment, both the original and the builders, suffers. Nevertheless, in my opinion, everyone should still work in their place and be responsible for their sector, while understanding the problems of such versatility and the fact that not everything depends on us. For several decades now, we have all been fighting - in the literal sense - to the end for quality and for our buildings. Sometimes, especially during field supervision, it's just our own initiative. We always say that the main character who needs to get something of high quality from the project is the architect. Therefore, sometimes it comes to the point that they are no longer allowed to go to the construction site, because they are adjusting some deadlines or some decisions on which the architect insists. This is not always possible, but, of course, there are positive examples and miracles, which Timur spoke about. Sometimes you think: I drew great, but they won't do that. But, lo and behold, they do it. And that means that you need to draw, you need to initially think through everything to the end and thoroughly. And, of course, decisions must be appropriate. And maybe our reality leaves this imprint immediately on our projects. I don't even know if this is good or bad, if this is the peculiarity to which, the guys said, this can lead. To this kind of Russian identity, when you know that you have to lay down such solutions that are feasible at a construction site, those materials that can really be used here. Sometime it stops, sometime, on the contrary, it gives the effect of such originality. And, of course, during the process, you need to be flexible enough to be able to react and understand what you can go for, and what - in no case. This is also one of the qualities of an experienced architect who can follow the process to the end. I would be optimistic - yes, a struggle, but what are the options?
Julius Borisov:… Probably because for the majority of those sitting here architecture is important. For those on this side, architecture is life. We have all dedicated our lives to this and continue to do so. And quality is a question: what have we devoted our lives to, have we done it with high quality or not? For me, this question has become quite serious, and I seriously thought about it. And he began to remember. I have wonderful students sitting here. And for them, the quality of the architecture is a well-arranged stretcher, beautifully made. Then we grow up as architects, came up with some kind of dashing facade - oh, a quality piece turned out. Then they built their first house - oh, they built it with high quality. Then they realized that the house is not everything, it is necessary to create an environment, that is, some kind of fabric, space. And now it has already turned out to be of high quality or not, because the house may be beautiful, but it is in the wrong place. And such reflections led to the fact that for me, for example, the quality of architecture is the quality of organizing life in space. And the question is how to evaluate it. And, probably, for me personally, the answer is that quality is harmony. Find harmony when neither take nor add. And in this case, for example, if we talk about quality, it is the harmony between what you want to do and the capabilities of the building complex or skew-handed builders. And finding this harmony is the quality of architects. Because when I look at the same Zaryadye, at the floating bridge, it is beautiful, a very cool idea, and the concrete is cast crookedly, not like in Switzerland.
Maybe this is the harmony of this place with this bridge, that the idea - the flight of enormous power - is thus embodied. And this is good for this place, because the Kremlin is also not very well made; if you look - there are walls in bubbles. This is our credo. Or, for example, quality is the harmony between your ideas and society, whether it has accepted your idea or not. And this finding of harmony for me is the quality. And the question of whether builders can do it or not is such a private question, most have learned to solve it. In general, I think that all the quality of a construction project has long been decided on paper. At the construction site, when we went to the construction site, there is nothing to do there. There, either they do what you drew on paper, or they don't. All the rest is from the evil one.
Levon Airapetov: For us, quality in terms of construction performance is not the quality of architecture, we do not believe that this is correct. A bunch of buildings of very high quality are just sheds, they are stuffed architecture. Lena and I talked, we said that there is a stuffed bird and there is a bird. Here is a stuffed animal - it is beautiful, well made, beautiful eyes, but it is a stuffed animal - a lifeless, stupid, stupid creature standing in a museum. And the bird - its wings are dirty, but it is alive, it flies. And in general - there is no such problem. The quality of a bird is flying; not her tail, wings, but flying. And architecture like flying is what should be there. It’s even hard to say what Melnikov’s house is made of - it’s made of garbage, it has been standing for a long time, and many generations come, bow, kneel down, and everything is fine. During this time, a bunch of buildings were built from the best materials, of higher quality, but this is not architecture. These are premises for living, for some kind of function. I don't think that Russian architects should pull out their hair and sprinkle ashes on their heads. To do this, just go to see the Zahi Hadid bridge in Zaragoza.
You understand, Zaha Hadid is such a serious figure. But it is generally impossible to approach the object closer than 3 meters. It's done so crooked! I don’t know, I haven’t been to Zaryadye yet, I was passing by - yes, the bridge is crooked, but in Zaragoza the guys bulged much steeper. I don't even know how Zakha "Ivanovna" survived this. Recently I was in Guangzhou (let's walk through Ms. Hadid), saw the opera house, which went around all the world's media …
In general, you can watch it from 20 meters. Seriously, I came from there a month ago. When I saw the photographs, there was a 3D ventilation grill made of stone. But it is better not to approach it: you stop thinking that people can do something. But in principle, the building is good. They tried, they tried. Next time, they will probably do it. Valeria and I were in Busan, where Coop built the Film Festival Center.
An amazing thing, from a distance of 30 meters, an amazing thing, across the road - in general, just a bomb. But when you approach, you realize that even the Koreans couldn't do anything. Curved, oblique, the lines do not converge. But in Seoul they built according to the project of Zaha "Ivanovna" - everything was done perfectly, everything went well. The fact is that this architecture presupposes some kind of innovation. That is, people do it for the first time, they all do it for the first time. And even Coop is doing it for the first time, and Koreans are doing it for the first time, they are trying, they are trying. Regarding the fact that it must be said that the quality of brick laying affects. I don't know, there is music and there are virtuoso musicians who quickly do something on the keyboard. Spectators who love music are seated; they say: what is he doing, what is he doing there in general. And then another comes out, he may not play very evenly, but the audience is crying. Because he puts himself into this music, he plays music. He does not play notes, he does not lay bricks evenly, he plays all the music at once. And these spectators say: yes, this is music. I cannot say that it is of high quality, it is music, just music. And in principle, if there is architecture, it exists, if it does not exist, it does not exist. And how it was made is of high quality, of poor quality … But for an architect, when you look at a building, especially if you know that it is made in Russia, you will never say about your colleague that he made a crooked wall, this is not taken into account at all. You basically know who did it. You look at what the architect did, not who made which wall. You know what a budget is. Recently, on the outskirts of the country, in Kaliningrad, we made a rather complex geometric project. And we killed everyone there, and for five years we killed everyone so that they could do it the way we wanted. We stopped, fired builders, we complained to the investor. We have a certain person there annexed the whole territory, in connection with which our facades became twice as expensive, which had to be bought from there. And we continued to strive for them to be like that. In the end, we killed them all. Yes, it cost us … I don’t know what it cost us, but I guess it was worth it. As for the quality, I told Lena that there are two quality options. Quality is the small qualities that make up an object, and the quality of architecture is such a philosophical concept that it has quality. If there is no quality, then this is not architecture, it is a different subject. That is, there is a quality that defines architecture. This is probably the breathing of space, the life of space. Architecture is a very simple thing. It is form and space, and nothing else is there. And everything else is nonsense. Because if everything is there, and there is no space or no form, then this is no longer architecture, these are some heaps of bricks, installations, something else. That is, if there is an internal space in an object, an external one and a border, then we will consider that this is architecture. If these spaces breathe, then we will consider that this is architecture. And the question: how do they breathe, who do they breathe, someone breathes, someone does not - this is the second problem, purely personal. But architects, like all musicians, for all that they say “I don’t like it,” do not understand that this is Mozart, nothing can be done about it.
Elena Petukhova: Thank you, Levon. We, journalists, like to say that everything in Russia is terrible, bad, and so on. Here, these unexpected examples show that in fact this is a completely common practice, despite our, Ilya, originality, love for some kind of home-grown natural building materials.
Levon Airapetov: I wanted to say one thing. I am more worried about something completely different in modern Russian architecture - this is some kind of suicidal (the last few years), a terrible desire to become a city planner, urbanist, landscape architect, gardener, bench worker. Let's give it to those people who cannot build spaces. Let's say that we are such people, we are architects. But this is the laying of tiles so that everyone can feel good … They are laying it, as long as I live in this city - it is being laid all the time. I don’t know, maybe someone felt good, someone didn’t. This is the second question - where does the money go. Money is such a thing from which you can really make a quality something like that. Because money gives you the opportunity to think for a long time. Money does not give you the opportunity to buy a beautiful brick, it gives you the opportunity to think for a long time, experiment and eventually find the right solution for the money that you have. But when there is no time, you can save yourself with gold paint. That is, if nothing worked, he simply anointed with silver - and everything is fine.
Elena Petukhova: Valeria, will you add anything?
Valeria Preobrazhenskaya: I'll try. After Levon, it is quite difficult to say something new. I think that in our dialogues that we had about this event that is happening now, it is not said that in general the event and the topic is not about architecture, it is about construction, about how to build with high quality, and not about high-quality architecture. High-quality buildings, roads, something else, but not about architecture. If we say so, then in the city always, in the 19th century and earlier, not everything was done by an architect. It's just that ordinary buildings in the city are not an architect, they are quite a lot of typical projects. But now we have raised a topic that makes us discuss how to make a building with high quality. And everyone talks only about this - how to deal with the situation, with the everyday situation, with reality, with something else, but this is not about that. This all distracts from what you need to really think about. And most of all, Sergei, you surprised me when you said that being an architect is so easy and natural, but it will take 15 years to be an architect. I agree, probably yes. But for this they at least need to want to be. That is, you need to want not to build a high-quality building, but to make architecture. It seems to me that it is so natural for you to be in architecture that you do not even understand that for someone it can be difficult.
Sergey Skuratov: Valeria, this is a banter. Don't you get it? Absolute banter.
Valeria Preobrazhenskaya: Everything, then I agree.
Sergey Skuratov: An architect learns all his life and dies illiterate.
Valeria Preobrazhenskaya: A naive person who does not even realize any difficulties, because he is behind them.
Sergey Skuratov: This whole discussion is a little annoying for me. Because we have gathered, in general, to talk about the Cosmos. We are discussing how to arrange the Cosmos correctly. And the Cosmos is either a matrix, or it is something that is beyond our control at all. We are not astronauts.
Valeria Preobrazhenskaya: Birds, astronauts.
Sergey Skuratov: We are not architects, we are people. We are, first of all, people, with our own problems, complexes, talents, skills and so on. We are trainable people or non-trainable people. We are ambitious, touchy, envious or kind or gentle. And it is very difficult for a soft person to be an architect in general, because he will never be able to defend anything due to his softness. And even when he is absolutely convinced, there are gentle parents who oppose anyone who dares to touch their child. And we are also like that - both soft and tough. And we resist, we break down the walls. Such a story does not exist all over the world. This is where the problem is. Not at all.
Levon Airapetov: Well, Nouvel just gave up on the Conservatory. Paris, Nouvelle.
Sergey Skuratov: I know, I was just in Baku, I watched the Heydar Aliyev Center. If you are interested, I will tell you two words.
Around the complete horror and nightmare. This is such, without reference to nationality, nightmarish carved stone architecture. The city is so very monochrome, all built of this limestone or this yellow dolomite. And this is a monstrous architecture, just awful. And in the center there is such a giant sculpture, snow-white and white. Indeed, it looks very good at a distance of 100 meters. Then you get closer and you see, of course, the joint between the concrete and this agglomerate, which is made very roughly. Indeed, everything is done without hands. Probably, Zaha did not intend that. But that's not the point. It's not really scary. Everyone takes pictures, walks, groans, gasps. Billions of dollars spent. You go inside and realize that this is not architecture, it is just a giant sculpture. And you understand this instantly, because everything that is exhibited there, and the people who are there, do not fit into this interior at all.
The interior collapses. As soon as people disappear, as soon as the exhibits disappear and you remain in a space in which there is nothing but this sculpture, then you feel harmony. As soon as some expositions, models, sculptures appear again, you understand that all this is absolutely superfluous here. We were a big company, there were few architects there, but nevertheless I gave them a small lecture there about where sculpture ends and architecture begins. This is a large, gigantic sculpture. And this is her problem. This is Zahi's problem in general. In fact, a serious problem, because it is her desire to do everything like a sculpture; from the point of view of functionality, it washes the architecture out of there in general. Because in architecture there must be some kind of function, benefit, some kind of expediency, there must be some zones where it can be used. This object cannot be used. This, by the way, is about quality. It's not even a quality, it's a made decision. This is how she sees it. And there was not a single person in this Azerbaijan who could say to Heydar Aliyev or his son: of course, you put on such a wonderful brooch on your lapel, which is expensive, but you will not be able to use it. How to wear it? This is also a question of what we are doing. Because the main mission of architecture is to make people's lives and space better, more humane so that they themselves become a little better, and so on.
Levon Airapetov: I spoke with Lena, it is interesting to ask: does any policeman think about me when he goes to work? Or some person who makes sausage, what does he think of me, makes me personally a good sausage? I don’t know, I’m not sure. And in general, all the people who live in this city think of me in order to do me well? I didn't notice at all. Not to mention the entire government headed by the president - do they think of me to make me feel good? I do not see. Why should I think that they would feel good?
Sergey Skuratov: Here, Levon. I actually started with this. You are absolutely sure now. But a French baker thinks to make delicious bread. It is very important for him that the people who lived in neighboring houses are happy and that he sees their faces.
Natalia Sidorova: I would like to argue about the sculpture, Sergei. I can’t say about Heydar Aliyev, I wasn’t, but I was in Dongdaemun in Seoul. I can say that it looks from the outside, the quality is really amazing.
It is a rare situation where a piece of architecture (I still think it is a piece of architecture), Dongdaemun Zahi Hadid, looks great in this environment. The environment is in stark contrast, but the center looks, sits in place. And I bet it's sculpture or architecture. Let there be a sculpture. But if you add to the sculpture what is in this sculpture, which is architecture, she could draw and make, everything will be fine. Everything immediately looks right and great. Another thing is that it is not always possible to make everything inside to the smallest detail the way this architecture needs. But for the most part it succeeds. Moreover, it is self-sufficient. Yes, a museum, here Libeskind built a museum in Berlin.
A wonderful museum outside, but inside … Any exhibit, any detail just spoils it and makes it not itself, but something superfluous. If we talk about what the Museum of the Memory of Jewish Victims and the Memory of the Holocaust is, then the beautiful building of Libeskind, which is empty, is not enough. And this is not a sculpture, because there is space inside, because it impresses you. The only thing is that it stops doing this when it is littered with everything, whatever it gets.
Sergey Skuratov: I will still say this phrase. I didn't really want to say it, but nevertheless I will. I think that the whole problem of our whole life is that we do not respect each other in Russia, do not respect each other's work, do not respect the time spent on the creation of a product. We don't respect bakers either. Workers who build don't respect architects. Developers who build don't respect architects either. And we don't really respect engineers, and so on, and so on. And the police do not respect us either, because they only need us to earn money, and not to make it better and more convenient on the roads. And this is our whole problem. Well, the Russian people have not learned to respect each other. Unfortunately, we have not learned. Zaha Hadid also does not always respect the people for whom she builds. It was very important for her to draw attention to herself, to do some absolute thing, but how this thing will be further used, how it will live, what will be there - it does not matter to her. I know this for sure, I speak from my bell tower, because I saw, studied all her sketches, went to exhibitions, read these books, and so on. I tried to understand her. It is from the series “if you want - take it, if you don't want it - don't take it; if you want - read, if you don't want - don't read; if you want - look, if you don't want - don't look. Still, architecture is a little different, something a little different. The architecture should be somehow comfortable, convenient, familiar. There are zones of architecture where a deliberately dramatic scenario should be unusual. All sorts of museums dedicated to some kind of tragedy and so on, it's all clear. But in general, harmony implies a kind of relaxation, organic existence, calm, normal, without tears in space, in the house, anywhere. This endless feat, which is everywhere, is already tired. Everywhere is a feat. I already want to somehow calmly, normally, as Zhvanetsky said, to go through, sit down and look, and calm down. When you walk around the city, you cannot calm down, because he just absorbs you all, he just mocks you. Our city, ours, Moscow. I'm talking about Moscow. It is impossible to live with him in peace, with this city. He's not all like that, all absolutely wrong. And the question is not about quality. This is a portrait of our society, a portrait of our ability to negotiate, the ability to respect each other, hear our neighbor, look not only inside ourselves, but around us. In this sense, yes, such a reality, we live in it. We are trying. We all have such an internal position: we try to be honest in our kitchen. We are grown like this.
Julius Borisov: Sergei, in response to you. Yesterday I had an interesting story. The days of Finnish architecture passed in Moscow. Finnish Embassy, education conference. Most people know that the Finns are ahead of the rest of the world about a new type of education and are building amazing schools and kindergartens. This is some kind of fantasy in terms of humanity, treating children as little adults. A whole philosophy. The lecture lasts for two hours, all projects are shown there. We showed Smart School and so on. And there was a representative of a company that organizes private schools in Russia. And he listened to everything like that: yes-yes-yes, cool, I like it so much, the only thing, a little boring. And then he shows a photo on his phone: can you do this? And I was just standing with my Finnish colleague, she really speaks Russian; her eyes just started to widen, she blushed. I look at the phone, and there is a drone filmed from above, such a block in the suburbs, 20- or 18-storey yellow-red brick houses, and inside a cramped courtyard a kindergarten in the form of a Barbie castle is literally built.
There are such turrets and so on. And he is seriously addressing this Finnish architect: is this how you can do it? What you show is clear. Therefore, the quality of the neighbor should be asked, of course. But, having asked, we must nevertheless understand exactly whether we really want to indulge society or whether we should educate it a little, society. And the quality of architecture should also reflect this kind of view of the architect as a visionary. There is no need to pull the whole blanket over yourself, that the architects are such great fellows, and the most important on the planet, and are responsible for everything. But the distinctive feature of an architect is that he must see what will happen to the building in 5 years, when it will already function normally, and in 50 years, when it will still be standing. And therefore, in the very education of the architect, in his upbringing, in his growing up, this need for him to be a kind of visionary exists. And always, in my opinion, the quality of architecture lies in how it will both educate society and function in society after a time when there will no longer be authors. I think this is important.
Elena Petukhova: I really like the way the conversation turned, and especially the part of it that concerns the relationship between architects and society. One gets the impression that the architect is some kind of special caste. These are some people who always make the right decisions, who learn all their lives, serve some of their gods, ideals in order to make Benefit, Strength and Beauty to embody, and so on. But society, despite the fact that Sergei Aleksandrovich urges everyone to respect each other, for some reason architects still assess it as insufficiently educated or insufficiently enlightened in order to understand this system of values that the architect professes. And society would live in completely different conditions, not in such conditions as Sergei Aleksandrovich said that the city treats and suppresses a person, but in fact this city was created by the hands and minds of architects, who were also sure that their every decision was correct. How are we to be?
Sergey Skuratov: Lena, tell me, please, what is your profession?
Elena Petukhova: I am an architect by education.
Sergey Skuratov: What do you do for a living?
Elena Petukhova: I am a journalist and manager.
Sergey Skuratov: So you are a media representative. Tell me who talks to the people, to the society about architecture? Give me at least a dozen architectural critics who write about architecture in the most important central newspapers every week and educate the people. Tell me.
Elena Petukhova: There are no such.
Sergey Skuratov: No. And it won't.
Elena PetukhovaWhy?
Sergey Skuratov: Firstly, because in our country it has been forbidden to tell the truth for a long time. And no one will speak out about the fact that our architectural council is an absolutely fake body that deals with the layout of facades, colors and so on. When, at the first councils, the new staff tried to argue about the need for this shopping center of Mr. Rotenberg on Kutuzovsky Prospekt, they immediately explained to us: guys, this is none of your business, you are engaged in beautiful facades and so on. This is about the framework within which architects work in our country. Try to say something against the renovation - tomorrow there will be no orders in Moscow. In general, not a single one, you will not work in Moscow, you will work in other cities, and so on. I just know specific people who tried to say something, they just called and said: tomorrow you will not have a single order in Moscow. How can we, in such conditions, talk about creating a high-quality product, when non-professionals are engaged in the things that professionals should do? Journalists who have to write about architecture don't write. People who need to know what the representatives of this profession are doing, what exactly are they doing? These high-rise buildings of 18-20 floors are not invented by architects, they are invented by developers in collaboration with the authorities. And we just put on shirts on them, beautiful or ugly, torn or sewn. And how can we talk about the quality of the environment in this situation? When the chief architect, who is told: “What to do with this?”, Answers: “I don’t know, the fact is that this decision was made before me, I am not responsible for it”. Indeed, he is not responsible. But the moment he becomes the chief architect, he becomes the person who actually expresses the ideal of the profession. They look at him, how he behaves, how he communicates with the authorities, how he communicates with architects, he, in a sense, becomes a symbolic figure. I must say then: you know, this is all a nightmare and horror. Nobody asks him whether he is responsible for it or not, he just has to give a description of this nightmare that is being built around Moscow now. This is horror and nightmare! And it goes on and it goes on. We, architects, cannot do anything about it, because it is a basic thing. Because professionals in this country are not listened to. If he starts talking too loudly, they shut him up. Very simple, very easy to shut up, just stop giving him orders. And he will be engaged in book graphics, or he will make sculptures, or he will sell drawings on the embankments, and so on. I'm talking about this, do you understand? We are all in fear and have delegated all our professional responsibilities to unprofessional people or people who have absolutely no value system with ours. How to demand from architects, from normal architects in this situation? The bulk of architects are not fighters, just normal people who do their job well. How to demand this quality from them? How to demand quality from workers? All architects know the conditions in which workers live on construction sites. A worker fell into a pit, died, they collect several thousand rubles for him, and this coffin is sent to Tajikistan. How in such conditions? And they don't even find out why it happened, how did it happen? Look at the cabins they live in. I know this very well, because I have a workshop there in the Garden Quarters, literally 100 meters away, construction is constantly going on. I see, I go there, I look. It's just some kind of horror and nightmare! These are simply inhuman conditions. I asked how much they get paid. Well, how can you do something good for this money? How? Impossible.
Elena Petukhova: I have a feeling when you said now that your narrative has always been turning a little, then one side, then the other: then the external influence on the architects, then the reaction of the architects to this influence. And each time, as it seemed to me, both the one and the other forced the front line to retreat deeper and deeper in the direction of non-quality. The professional shop is losing. You can blame society, you can blame journalists, you can blame developers and so on, but everything that happens is the result of successive steps backwards from generations to generations of architects.
Sergey Skuratov: Lena, I'm sorry, I didn't blame anyone, I was just telling. I didn’t blame anyone, it’s impossible. I am not a prosecutor, not a prosecutor. I just tell my impression of what surrounds me. I have been living in internal opposition for a long time. And I don't like a lot. But this does not mean that I work carelessly. We do not discuss me, we do not discuss my work. We came for something completely different.
Elena Petukhova: I’m just talking about this situation. You noticed that journalists do not write about architecture and that this is not a subject of discussion in society, and so on. This is actually a truly global problem. But it seems to me that it is partly dictated by the fact that architects themselves cannot find a language to talk with society, including in the person of customers, contractors, and so on. And I remembered, Andrei said this phrase, that this is the third principle that you spoke about - you have to work. When you came up with the idea, I will not repeat you, I'm afraid, I'll just distort it. I really liked that you have to work with these people further. And to convince, convince, convince them of their decisions, in their correctness, to explain. This is some kind of missionary position. Did I say correctly?
Andrey Asadov: I will just express my opinion on the relationship between the architect and society. For a long time I have been associated with the national initiative "Living Cities", these are professionals from different fields, but who are all working together in their fields to create a quality space. They call this "living space". And this is just a very positive experience. We dived into this quite deeply. They have wonderful methods, they come to the city, they assemble a team for such a transformation of urban space and in general the way of life in the city. This team necessarily consists of representatives of the authorities, of some local entrepreneurs, in our case, developers, of some active public figures - activists, public organizations and professionals. And when all these elements are present together, then they establish a dialogue, constructive interaction. When everyone is present, the ideas that come from all members of this team are much easier to implement. Finding both finances and organizational support, and implementing these ideas - these are the beginnings of a prototype of a 2-0 society, I believe, which is already feeling its independence. A clear embodiment of this independence can be the growing virtual activity of ICOs - these are initiatives such as IPOs, but in a virtual format, initiatives that bring people together, projects are launched. They are already in such an interethnic, intergovernmental space, they do not listen to what the authorities will tell them, they simply collect the initiative of citizens and charge it in the implementation of real projects, including finance. It is very interesting for me to be present at the birth and development of such new social structures based on cooperation, coordination, and such cooperation. There is a feeling that the cycle of disunity, depression, some kind of pressure is gradually fading into the background, and new interethnic cooperatives appear, and it is much easier for people to negotiate directly with each other, and it is much easier to implement some things.
Levon Airapetov: Valeria and I are among the architects Sergei said about. I have been living in this city for a long time, but I haven’t built anything here, I didn’t even have time to build a dog kennel. When I came here - that was a long time ago - I realized that this city does not love me. We had one experience with an investor, we went through the back door with a heap of money, the investor allocated money for bribes at the mayor's office for this project to be carried out. The person who took the money said that he should show it to Yuri Mikhailovich, but when I brought the model, he said: I will not show this, take the money and leave here. That is, never. A new government has come, and we are not building anything anyway. We build in Kaliningrad, Kamchatka, we build everywhere except this city. And I don't understand why I should love him if he doesn't love me so much. Why should I go to this society? What am I supposed to do for him? I don't think Beethoven went out and asked: guys, what notes should I use to make you have fun for the remaining 300-400 years? Mr. Brodsky said that he would not speak the language of the people. This is a vulgar language, and he is a poet, he cannot speak their language. The architects, I hear Andrei, have some kind of suicidal tendencies: guys, we are kind of stupid, we will go and ask these residents how these residents want to live. They want bread and circuses, they always want bread and circuses, and never want anything else. And only 0.2% go and watch Tarkovsky's stupid films, they look at this screen and want to understand what he hung up there for them. And everyone else is watching Star Wars. The ticket office is on the other side. I don’t want to go to those people in that cashier and ask: what would I do for you so that you feel good? Yes, let them stand there, everything has already been done for them. Let me do it well for myself. If I am a good person, then, probably, someday someone will be good too. The problem is simple: if we treat architecture as art, then people enter this art who believe that they are artists. If they do not treat it as art, but treat it as a business, something else, well, this is also a question. We had journalists, there was a magazine called Project Russia. Now they are laying tiles in the city. These people who wrote to us what architecture should be (the same Georgy Isaakovich), they lay tiles in the city, they draw pedestrian crossings. Why did they suddenly become our architects and design cities? Maybe some students are doing it, and they earn money from it? Guys, has something become boring to write about architecture? Is it over, or what? Is she so good that you don't have to write about her anymore? Is she so bad that you no longer need to write about her? Why did you all give up and start working on granite? Yes, Lena, all the journalists mostly fled to where there is some money. To all appearances, journalism does not make money in architecture. Apparently, architecture doesn't make money either. That is, apparently, everyone is engaged only in what brings money. Then let's say that the main thing in our country is money, we want to earn it, even our government is doing just that. It does nothing else, only where to get money from. They go and watch Star Wars, and while they watch Star Wars, they have granite tiles laid for them for their own money. This is what this whole society is doing. In the end, why should I, as an architect, come in and try to talk them all out: guys, let's do something good, maybe you will give me 3 rubles, I will try very hard, I put my whole life on this architecture, give me at least a ruble, I am very …
Not! I will find someone on the outskirts of this country or another country, I will agree with him, I will say: do you want your name to remain when you die? You will die, I will die, but it will remain. He begins to understand that he is not Abramovich, he does not even have a billion, well, he has 100. I will say: give two, and you will remain in eternity. He says, "Good." Here we will do everything for two. Guys, there are no other ways. And not only with us. Yes, in Switzerland, stones are laid smoother than in Russia, they have always been laid smoother and will be laid smoother. But when you come to Switzerland, when I come to Switzerland, I look at 3-4 buildings. I don’t walk around Switzerland, I don’t say: “What architecture!”; I say, "How clean it is." And the architecture is over there, and you have to get on the car, go somewhere to the very village, and there some Zaha Hadid or some other person has built something, to which I will come and watch it. I will go into this building, I will not look at the beautiful marble and any buildings in Zurich. Zurich is a beautiful city, but there is no architecture. But there is something that people leave to each other; not money, not shoes, they leave meaningless, stupid things - literature, music, poetry. They do not leave bricks, they leave something that cannot be taken and given to someone. It is, you can approach it, listen to it, watch it, stroke it. and it is always worth it, it is nobody's. These two, about whom I spoke earlier, - one gave money, the other made; they both died, but the creation stands, and people go there. The Japanese get on a plane, fly to Greece to see the Parthenon. The Parthenon has fallen apart, it is all in the rubble, it is completely of poor quality, there are no functions, no strength, nothing at all. Vitruvius was wrong: no function, no strength; only beauty remained, and that was not what it was. But people all go there because something is breathing there. Breathes there, guys. As for the journalists, this is superb, that's right. Indeed, everyone is busy with tiles. The country is occupied with tiles, the government is occupied with tiles. Tiles are our taxes.
Natalia Sidorova: Maybe while everyone is busy with tiles, we will do something of such high quality on the sly? It seems to me that this is also our peculiarity. We say that here is never, nothing, and everything is bad, but everything is fine there. I just recently with some friends who come here not for the first time to visit from Japan, Switzerland and other countries, I am surprised to hear: how Moscow has changed, but to some extent and St. Petersburg. But they talk, oddly enough, about the cleanliness that simply amazes them in comparison with the rest of the world's cities. And I already hear it several times. Perhaps, to some extent, our problem is that we do not look with such optimism, do not treat our country this way, and therefore we receive this energy in return. We said that the role of the architect here is not as high, perhaps, as elsewhere in the world, and we would very much like to do, in addition to all other applied problems, high-quality architectural education, the development of the craft of the construction and construction industries. These are the problems of increasing the role of the architect in the country. And here the media could somehow help us.
Julius Borisov: It seems to me, Natalya, you have come up with a very interesting topic, because when we talk about quality, there is such a concept - “quantity”, which should turn into quality. From time to time, we all gather here in such a sad bunch that flows from conference to conference. Yesterday we were there, at the embassy, met, talked, drank; today here, in a few days in Kazan we will report something. By the way, there is also a high-quality environment, not only in Moscow. It seems to me that the problem is that there is a lack of quality architects in the country in principle. And therefore, what my office builds, I believe, is the usual normal architecture, which is in any large European city. No more and no less. We are not outstanding architects from the point of view of a global scale, since we do not win places at WAFs either. We are normal European architects. Only there are very few of us. Here we are sitting, and there are 100 of us in Moscow, that is, to Russia. The rest are also good architects, either they simply cannot approach the projects, or their employees, and we see across the country (as Sergei Skuratov spoke about), in the Moscow region and in other cities, this is such a rather scary background of architecture. Therefore, of course, we are generally not respected as architects. Because we do not create a product for the country, for society. It does not see the bursts of normal architecture, it sees the general background that exists behind the Garden Ring. As soon as you go beyond the Garden Ring, you already have such an average background, not very good. And here, in my opinion, the question of education first of all arises: it is necessary to teach and educate high-quality architects in large numbers. And then the general level of architecture will begin to increase, quantity will turn into quality. There will already be competition not only in the Moscow market, where it is serious, but in general on the federal one. And then there is already a transition from quantity to quality. This is the point that I have learned for myself a long time ago, which is why I teach. By the way, there are many students here, who are great for coming. I am convinced that since it is important for them to see how architecture lives, it means that there is hope that in the future there will be more good, normal, strong architects who will raise the prestige of the profession. And then the society will say: yes, you architects were able to do something for us, let's listen to you. This is normal. You have to start with yourself.
Andrey Asadov: I will add. Every year I observe the content, the main content within the framework of competitive projects - in my opinion, there is a positive trend. That is, the overall quality level is steadily growing. I hope the number will also increase, especially young architects. This year there is another remarkable exposition - an assembly of alternative educational institutions: schools, workshops, master classes - everything that can form an architect of pre-institute age, in childhood, in institute. And it seems to me that this educational process is developing very well, dynamically. Architects themselves want to learn more information, educate themselves, educate each other, and there is a need to improve their inner level of quality and broadcast it to the surrounding space, to tell in the format of popular lectures and in some professional events. Indeed, this process of education, quality improvement, its transmission is ongoing and, I hope, will only develop.
Ilya Mukosey: I will probably object to Levon now. Although, in fact, this is not an objection to Levon. It is already clear that the views of those present do not coincide in everything. Mine and yours do not coincide in many ways. An architect is still an applied profession, in my deep conviction. Of course, there are buildings-brooches, buildings-decorations that the powerful of this world, be it a politician or a rich person, can order and receive this sculpture, which the author will make as he sees it. But most buildings are built for people. And people cannot be considered a mass that only needs Star Wars and McDonald's. In fact, this is not at all the case. If you properly and respectfully talk with the most, at first glance, ordinary people, you understand that they are not so simple. Many of them also read not only "Buratino" and watched not only "Well, wait a minute!" In this sense, I agree with Skuratov: respect for each other is one of the guarantees of health in society, including the quality of architecture. But “step aside, I’m a genius, I’ll do it for you now, as I see fit” - this is, please, with your own money or with the money of someone who will give you a ruble, who will have the same tastes with yours. But this is not the defining part. If we are talking about some numbers, there are good buildings in Moscow, but many believe that there are few of them. To make them more, it is precisely this approach that is needed, with mutual respect, and not a competition of someone's egos, people who consider themselves to be either geniuses, or those who understand architecture, or something else like that. Not only in Moscow, in general everywhere. And then, the concept of aesthetic quality - it is very vague, it turns into various other qualities. For example, Art Nouveau architecture was considered the height of vulgarity at the time it was being built. Many intellectuals of that time did not quite approve of many buildings. Now they have at least historical value. Many disgusting buildings that appeared in the era of Luzhkov, if they live for 50 years, will also acquire historical value. I remember very well that in the 1970s and 1980s, many people did not like Stalin's skyscrapers. Someone considered them the height of vulgarity, someone a symbol of a totalitarian system, and now we consider them valuable objects in the urban environment. By the way, through this we treat their aesthetic parameters differently. Therefore, the conversation about what a masterpiece is, high-quality architecture is, in this sense, a very stretchable story. And what is considered a masterpiece at the time of construction can be forgotten, abandoned, devalued and trampled upon after a fairly short time. Therefore, if we think about some things that can be discussed collectively, genius is meaningless to discuss collectively. It seems to me that we need to rely on such things as respect for people, respect not only for each other, but also for others. Indeed, some man thinks he is a good architect. Everyone who builds considers himself a good architect. And I, for example, do not consider him a good architect, and he does not consider me, and someone else does not consider the third, and so on. This is all very relative. The only thing that any architect can say in his own defense is to say, for example, that in this theater there is never a crush at the exit. This is an objective criterion, for example. In fact, it is the architect who must think about these things, and not the one who creates large spatial sculptures. With all due respect to this side of our profession.
Julius Borisov: I will add to your words. 100% agree. And I would say - not only respect, but also love: love for oneself, love for the profession and love for people. We somehow built an economy-class village, the Dutch Quarter; someone was in it, someone was not, and I received an email.
These are young architects, in my opinion, they were 20 years old, they bought an apartment there. And they wrote me such a declaration of love (a man with a girl or with a wife, they have a child), why they bought it there. They analyzed in detail how the inhabitants were, what was good there, what would they have done differently, and so on. It was such a letter of thanks. And it was a message for me that my team and I did a good job. This letter was after 3 years since we handed over the object. And I realized: ok, we did it well. Only because there was such a letter. It was important for me.
Elena Petukhova: There is one small, but, in my opinion, significant detail: they were architects. They understood architecture and were able to appreciate it, being already educated. But we have several times here the theme that society's perception of architecture and the activities of architects is based on, in general, poor education and a lack of understanding of what is happening and why, and what is being done and why. And most often the focus of society's attention is not architecture, but more applied things: the tiles already mentioned many times, benches, and so on. Now, Ilya, I want to ask you to take the microphone and try to join the discussion of the architect, society, the information field and the importance of educational activities here - what Skuratov talked about, about which journalists do not write and architects themselves do not write, and architects do not appear on television. invite. There is a profession in some kind of information vacuum. Everything is fine from the point of view of coverage of events in real estate, because, again, it all comes down to money, but for some reason architecture is not interesting, not important, not significant. What is happening here, is there some measure of responsibility of the professional community itself, or is it just a legacy that we should treat as a given, as roads? Maybe this situation will change, but over time, through quantity, turning into quality, enlightenment, something else. What do you think?
Ilya Mukosey: I don’t know why you are asking me.
Elena Petukhova: Let me explain why. Because of all those present, you sometimes work in the same field as I do. You are a writing architect, which means you are a journalist architect. This gives you the opportunity to look at the situation in an abstracted way, a little from the outside.
Ilya Mukosey: I do not know if this gives anything, but I have an opinion on this topic. First, it seems to me that this is a big delusion that no one writes or shows anything. My friends, which one of you watches TV? No one. Okay. Who reads the newspapers? Okay. Who can name three or four bloggers writing about architecture for me? Ilya Varlamov, for example. We don't really listen, watch or read. Second question: how many of you regularly read magazines, for example, about cinema? I hint that there is simply no mutual interest in society between different professional groups. If you are an electronics engineer, you communicate with electronics engineers and read electronics magazines; it is clear that there are some related interests, such as all together to go to see "Star Wars" new; Levon, I love it very much. The problem is not that they don't write. "Why don't you have red caviar?" - asked Zhvanetsky. - "No demand." In fact, I sometimes ride the subway and sometimes read the Metro newspaper - a wonderful, wonderful, not very “yellow” newspaper, in my opinion. There they regularly write about architecture and landscaping. There were even some events related to me, about which they wrote: the student competition for the Dynamo park was covered and the work of the winner was published with a rather sensible commentary. In principle, they write and read and watch. Again, I will brag further. We had one project, which was shown on TV many times on various channels, and later my acquaintances who were not related to architecture asked me questions about this. In fact, we, architects, do not look around ourselves. This time. Indeed, little is written about architecture. And what non-professionals write is, perhaps, not bad. I, for example, as you recommended me, a writing architect, I wrote only a few times for non-architectural publications. It has its own specifics: there you need to be able to write so that it is really understandable, it is not interesting for architects. And for this, it may be better to be not an architect, but just a person who knows how to understand unfamiliar things, a good journalist. In short, it seems to me that if, after mutual respect, mutual interest and curiosity someday also appear, then, probably, something will become better in this regard. And so we are a kind of hermetic sect of architects, despite the fact that belonging to this sect can be constantly challenged. Everyone says and hits himself in the chest: "I am an architect, but you are not an architect, you go and put some tiles." Why is the journalist Muratov now laying the tiles, Strelka's partner, while he, in fact, is also an architect by education? So, because he has not worked as an architect for a long time, he has no right to be called that? Shekhtel did not dare to call himself an architect for most of his life. He was an engineer. And Tadao Ando was a boxer. How to determine who has the right to classify himself as a sect of architects, and who does not, is a very, very delicate question, in my opinion, which does not have an unambiguous answer. Levon thinks it's simple. Everyone who likes Levon, apparently, can.
Levon Airapetov: Everyone thinks I'm a fan of Zaha Hadid. And in Berlin, this girl and I looked at Koolhaas longer than at Libeskind. We were amazed at the art of drawing just a rectangle on a building. Hans Kollhoff is a traditionalist. I would generally turn to the architectural community: students come to us to be hired, these people cannot name more than 5 names. They only know the names they read in the newspapers. A person comes and says: “I like, for example, Rem Koolhaas. And what do you like? He has such a crooked building with a round window. " - "What's the name?" “I don’t remember.” - "Where is it?" “I don’t remember.” - "Well, take a pencil, draw, draw a plan, how the building looks." He says: "What are you, I just like it." I say: "Imagine, you come to hire somewhere after the conservatory in the orchestra and say:" I am a violinist. " The conductor says: "Who do you like?" - "I like Mozart, Beethoven and Bach." - “Do you know anyone else? Well, what do you like about Beethoven? " - "Here, he has a string sonata." - "Well, play it." He says: "What are you, I just like it." These are architects who have been studying for 5 years - they do not know what is happening in the world in general. They only know some 5 names that are shown to them on TV. He does not know anyone further than the "first five", he does not know what the people are doing who will replace those whom he knows, who are now 35-40, who have already done everything, and these are completing the construction when they were 35. Coop holds on on what they did at 35, they just finish building it all. And now those who do this are shaping this world, not those who are completing it. Coop is an outgoing generation. And these are architects. And you want me to go to some people and ask them something. An architect is a person who is responsible for the lives of people if his building collapses. An architect is a person who spends millions of dollars or tens of millions of dollars of human money on his building, on the construction that was ordered to him. And let's take some surgeon who does a $ 100,000 operation. He performs an operation on a person. He studied for 5 years, and this one studied for 5 years. And now the surgeon comes and says: "Guys, take people from the street and ask them how I need to do the operation." Maybe they feel sorry for this man. Let's ask the patient: how to cut you, diagonally or with a cross? And the surgeon begins to ask him: do you like how I sewed your seam?
Ilya Mukosey: Can you already break your sloppy analogy? First, a person comes to the surgeon and says: my stomach hurts. After that, experts conduct an examination and decide what exactly hurts him. But first of all, a request came from a person. And then they say to him: we can do you an operation or we can treat you with such pills, take your pick. The surgeon does nothing without the consent of the patient.
Levon Airapetov: That is, if he is about to die, they tell him: come on, quickly choose.
Ilya Mukosey: Even if dying. If there is at least one doctor here, he will confirm that the doctor does nothing without the consent of the patient or his relatives, if he is unconscious. And so everywhere. Indeed, people do not know resistance materials and do not know how the bridge should be arranged, but they know that it is inconvenient for them to travel from one point of the city to another, because there is no road, there is no crossing of the river at this place. And they may be writing to the administration: build us a bridge. And architects come and say: it will be beautiful here, here we will build a bridge for your millions. It's just that the architectural profession is applied and socially responsible. And even if you are building some kind of nonsense in the city center with your own money, other people may forbid you.
Elena Petukhova: Dear friends, unfortunately we are running out of time, and logically I should have made some conclusions here. But you categorically did not help me to do this. But the most important thing that I heard: there are certain difficulties, and the problem of the quality of architecture in Russia is largely growing or is somehow connected with the position of the architect in society and with discrepancies and different points of view on the role of an architect and on the perception of duties and rights. architect and so on. Apparently, this topic needs further reflection. And every architect, including Julius, those very young architects and students studying now, who should make up the quantitative majority that will help change the qualitative one, - for them, I think, it is very important to find the answer to this question: what exactly they will do for society; what exactly from society they would like to receive, what kind of reaction or what kind of request, and how this system can work to bring real results. Are they architects-creators or are they part of the system, are they professionals who fulfill a certain social order? This is the problem that will most likely determine whether it will be possible to overcome the current situation where the architect is not an authority in most cases, except for virtually everyone who is present here - you do not encounter this problem so often, you solved it for yourself. And you are successful precisely because you solved it. But most architects could not decide and could not achieve the degree of authority that allows them to overcome doubts or some whims on the part of the customer, their own reasons for developers, contractors, and so on, which, as a result, turns a good and very high-quality project into not very high-quality architecture, which is the main part of our modern Russian architecture.
