Last summer, due to the appearance of the AA Visiting School Moscow pavilion near the Danilovsky market, one of the authors of his project, Felix Novikov, raised the topic of tactful handling of objects of post-war modernism - and with their architects, which you can read about here.
In connection with this story, the editorial staff of Archi.ru conceived a survey on the topic of the restructuring of post-war modernism. We asked architects and architectural historians to name examples of respectful and disrespectful attitude towards modernist buildings during their reconstruction, touching upon ethical issues: where are the boundaries of a serious distortion of the author's intention? Does the architect of the original building have the right to consider himself insulted in principle, and if so, in what case?
Anna Bronovitskaya
historian of architecture, director of research at the Institute of Modernism, teacher at MARCH school
The most interesting example of respect for the building of modernism, in my opinion, remains the conversion of the building of the Four Seasons restaurant (Igor Vinogradsky, Igor Pyatkin, 1968) into the Garage Museum of Contemporary Art, carried out in 2015 by the OMA bureau. Inside the new shell - distinctly modern but in tune with the modernism of the 1960s - the interior wall decoration and mosaics, which survived the period of abandonment of the building, have been preserved and carefully restored. Quite significant interventions made it possible to give the building a new life, not drowning out, but emphasizing the authenticity of its foundation.
The Museum of the Moscow Railway showed an outrageous disrespect towards the building of the Pavilion of Lenin's funeral train that it inherited. The unique work of the outstanding architect Leonid Pavlov (1980) was transformed in two steps into
an almost faceless container with an exposition that Russian Railways could find elsewhere in its vast real estate.
I don't think it makes sense to talk about the right to resent - or any other feelings. They can be experienced, regardless of rights, not only by authors who happened to live to see the distortion of their buildings, but also by other people. Society has the right to demand from owners respect for architecture that has not only utilitarian but also artistic and historical value.
Vasily Baburov
architectural historian
As an example of respect for the construction of post-war modernism, I would like to cite the recent (2015) renovation of the National Theater in London (original design by Denis Lasdan, 1976) by Haworth Tompkins. This is the second in a row renovation of the complex, designed, among other things, to correct the mistakes of the less successful previous one, implemented in the 1990s by the architects of Stanton Williams and which caused the author's indignation. Haworth Tompkins scrupulously studied Lesdan's original design and, adapting the complex to the needs of today, made their own "interventions" either minimally visible, or, conversely, emphasizing the brutalist style of the 1970s. For example, the extension to the rear façade, into which the theatrical workshops were moved, was designed in materials different from the main ones, but at the same time it looks very restrained, without attracting too much attention to itself. In addition, the renovation made it possible to reveal some of Lesdan's ideas, which for one reason or another remained on paper.
Leaving aside the rebuilding of the Artek camp, which is perhaps the most controversial example of the destruction of a modernist ensemble, an indicative negative example would be the reconstruction of individual Moscow metro stations (Vorobyovy Gory, Prazhskaya,entrance pavilions "Taganskaya" - radial), i.e. buildings of the Khrushchev and Brezhnev sovody.
Among them, it is worth highlighting "Vorobyovy Gory", which actually replaced "Lenin Hills" - one of the most iconic works of "thaw" modernism. The reconstruction of the station, carried out at the turn of the 1990s-2000s, has little in common with the original design of the late 1950s (architects M. P. Bubnov, A. S. Markelov, M. F. Markovsky, A. K. Ryzhkov, B. I. Tkhor), which became a symbol not only of that era, but also of Moscow as a whole. The need for strict economy forced architects to look for new means of expressiveness, which they coped with without exaggeration masterly - they created not just utilitarian objects, but genuine works of architecture.
The reconstruction of the beginning of the XXI century followed the principle "to the ground, and then", proceeding from the presumption of the artistic insignificance of the original project. Lightness and airiness were replaced by monumental heaviness, which turned the deck of the ship into a hypostyle hall. Even if the new station turned out to be comparable to its predecessor in terms of its architectural quality (and this did not happen), this could hardly serve as an excuse for such an attitude.
Olga Kazakova
architectural historian, director of the Institute of Modernism
As an example of a respectful attitude, I would name the work of Ekaterina Golovatyuk (bureau Grace) with the Tselinny cinema in Almaty, but this is a temporary job, and what will be done with the Asif Khan building is not yet clear.
As disrespectful - what was done with
residential building - "Flute" - Felix Novikov in Zelenograd: they performed monotonous glazing of the balconies and thereby "killed" the whole rhythm of the building, although, in my opinion, this glazing was not necessary.
Nikolay Lyzlov
architect, professor at Moscow Architectural Institute, vice-president of the Agrarian Academy
Where are the boundaries of serious distortion of the author's intention?
From the point of view of the author (everything, of course, depends on the nature of a particular character), the boundaries of a serious distortion of his intention pass immediately after any construction work at his facility. F. L. Wright is said to have had a custom of inspecting his clients' homes and berating them for every chair he moved in the living room.
Does the architect of the original building have the right to consider himself insulted in principle, and if so, in what case?
No, of course, the author has no right to be offended, the architect can get upset, worry, and regret that what he came up with turned out to be unclaimed, or underestimated. In the first case, this means that he did something wrong, did not understand something, built something that was not expected of him. In short, he did not do his job well enough if the building had to be altered and adapted.
In the second case, he can only regret the low level of intelligence and taste of his customers (or their successors), this also happens.
The most egregious example of disrespectful reconstruction, in my opinion, is what is happening with Moscow cinemas today. The word "reconstruction" is generally inapplicable here. There is a total demolition of buildings of the most varied architectural quality, both built according to standard and reusable projects, and the author's, unique architecture, and in their place are being built the same, if not typical buildings made according to the same template. As if someone, along with old furniture, threw antiques into the landfill so that they could buy everything at IKEA. This is a sharp decline in the quality of urban development, first of all.
From international experience, this is the barbaric reconstruction of the Lenin Palace in Alma-Ata.
An example of a "respectable" or normal reconstruction is the expansion of the building of the Museum of Cosmonautics in Kaluga, the reconstruction of the TsUM building - there are many good examples, they just are not as noticeable as the bad ones.
Dmitry Sukhin
architect, architectural historian, chairman of the Kamsvikus District and BW Insterburg Friends Society, second chairman of the Sharunov Society
Ethics is “a product of a common community”, “norms, a society that unites, overcome individualism, rebuff aggressiveness”: this is how the dictionary teaches us. “More ethics!” - we invite the world to join us, ethical, because an architect is always ethical? In any private order - he thinks about the neighbors, about the ensemble, about the city as a whole. And if anyone does not - let the reprimand of colleagues be his seal of Cain! To this day, we brand Svinin for rebuilding the outbuilding near Rossi a couple of inches higher - and Basin’s house near the Alexandrinsky Theater, isn't it blasphemy? So what, a century and a half ago: a blasphemer is a blasphemer, because our eternal modernism is based on that eclecticism.
True, and thereby revives it.
And "the wolf to the wolf is the architect."
And Basin's house is a residential one, but is housing in that modernism the highest value?
Appreciating the building, the society erects it as monuments. Valuing the author, society is counting 70 years on copyright. And, if the building is completed, annexed, rebuilt and somehow distorted or changed - it appeals to the notorious ethics: how, without asking, did some dare ?! Particularly ardent here are members of families, to whom, they say, when leaving for the churchyard, uncle whispered … Although it would seem: a new project by the very fact of issuing a building ticket to it does not receive a seal of public acceptability, even utility - otherwise it would not have been approved? And when we rise to the defense, threatening with the highest measure of copyright, with our own demolition to the root, outstripping the villain-perverter (only the result is exactly the same as his), will we defend ethics with unethicality? Individualism is overwhelming - in the definition of the dictionary it is as if indicated, but only with the opposite sign. The author's defense not only presupposes “distortion”, it speaks of “deterioration”: we immediately start “from the negative”. And for whom then will the court stand? Recently, only Meinhard von Gerkahn and Volkvin Marg (both alive) sued the German Railways in the case of the ceiling of the Berlin Central station, conceived vaulted, built flat - yes, the court admitted, it was completely conceived, but the railway is not wrong, striving - the construction was still in the process - to accelerate and deepen, for the benefit of the public. Paul Bonatz's heirs could not prevent the demolition of parts of his station for the sake of laying the Stuttgart-21 tunnel, now the fight is going on for the Cathedral of St. Jadwiga in Berlin on Bebel Square, which was rebuilt by Hans Schwippert in 1963 with a crypt wide open into the prayer hall - here is a public recognition, expressed in a letter of protection, and the copyright of the heirs (until 2043) are beaten by the unrestrictedness of religious freedoms.
Let us admit, if only to ourselves: modernism is generally difficult to rebuild or complete without violating the original form or meaning, it was not laid in their walls of reserves of mass or meaning, but there were mistakes, unjustified experiments - for ten!
The Berlin Arts Forum is also a field for a rampant of different rights. There is also the New National Gallery of Mies van der Rohe, a genuine temple - in the Greek sense. The entrance is not provided, the visitor is harmful, it is better to stay outside, on a specially built plateau. It is significant that it was in him and on him that the collection was placed. And it is growing, because this temple is dedicated to the art of the 20th century. Many were tormented, Herzog and de Meuron defeated with a building that was almost deliberately of a low order: the barracks. With the radiant Mies through the kingdom of Tantalus is connected.
There is also the foyer of the Hans Scharun Philharmonic, which was improved by Petra and Paul Kalfeldt. Here a ramp was laid, there the information counter was replaced as if a four-legged table had been accidentally placed here. And even in spherical broken shapes. But those forms were taken from the barriers of the concert hall, and the thin legs of the former standard faceless table were just intentional, emphasizing the unimportance and weightlessness of the tabletop above the patterned mosaic floor. The same legs are in the tables of the "old" sideboard, since now, at the request of the customer, a new sideboard has sat in the very center of the foyer, it shines with a refrigerated display case in all directions. There, Sharun had a fork-shaped double support in a flower bed - it still stands. But if earlier many visitors walked around this greenery for years, literally not seeing the support - now it just does not rush into their eyes. And the old buffet, just a couple of meters further, is closed, empty. The Kalfeldts are thorough: they inquired about the rights - the Academy of Arts inherited the authorship, - they agreed with the protection of monuments, and did not do any major changes at all - showcases and racks stand exactly on the side of the old flower bed. “The plants were already feeling bad there,” they say. However, it is impossible to imagine a greater misunderstanding of Sharunov's ideas.
Or maybe it's not the notorious ethics at all. She is here only, rather, just a fashionable word, and, it seems, familiar, by ear. What is worse than the old words, and, most importantly, your own?
Ensemble is needed.
Symphony in colors.
Mutual understanding with interpenetration.
Contribution and co-authorship.
Healthy stinginess. In word formation too.
Maria Serova
architect, co-founder of the Sovmod research project
Practically throughout the entire post-Soviet space, the value of the architecture of post-war modernism is obvious and is not recognized by all the professional community. And when it comes to the townspeople, whose profession and circle of interests are not related to architecture, then it is even more difficult to explain the value of this huge layer of architecture. Reflecting on the subject of respectable examples of reconstruction, the thought comes to mind that there are no such examples or almost none among the former Soviet republics, just as there is no ethics or methodology for working with this type of heritage. There are examples of good preservation of the original function with partial preservation of the interiors and external appearance: for buildings of Soviet modernism, this is often already a victory over circumstances. I can say that, as a rule, cultural objects are exposed to the least external influences: theaters, museums, former palaces of pioneers, memorial monuments. In Moscow, one can call a perfectly preserved Paleontological Museum, in which every element is an object of art, even shelves for exhibits, as well as the Krasnaya Presnya Museum, the former AZLK Palace of Culture (now the Moskvich cultural center).
There are infinitely many bad examples of reconstruction, it makes no sense to name a specific object, this is a whole kaleidoscope of cheap plastic facades with blue glass, which replaced solid aluminum stained-glass windows, Armstrong ceilings, under which masterpieces are often sewn up, and chipped marble breccia replaced by salt-pepper porcelain stoneware.
What is now happening in Moscow with the legacy of the Khrushchev era can also not be called a step towards understanding post-war architecture. I think the issue here is not in professional ethics, but in the place of this architecture in the public consciousness.
In the work on the reconstruction or restoration of buildings of the post-war modernism era, the process of interaction with the authors of the buildings is one of the necessary stages of the pre-project analysis, especially if there is an opportunity to communicate personally, and not through the prism of articles and books. This is a rare bonus for an architect. The border of what is permitted here is exactly the same as when dealing with other architectural heritage - for a start, it is worth identifying an object of value, even if it is not officially a subject of protection, and the building is an architectural monument. It is probably worthwhile to understand that modernism has already passed into the category of precisely the architectural heritage and when working with it, it is worth adhering to the corresponding principles.
Mikhail Knyazev
architect, postgraduate student of Moscow Architectural Institute, co-founder of the research project Sovmod
Today, unfortunately, there is an overwhelming majority of cases of disrespectful attitude towards the monuments of post-war modernism. Therefore, instead of trying to find examples with "+" and "-" signs, I want to tell one interesting case from the life of our Sovmod project - a story about an ideal model of interaction with caring subscribers, which we dreamed about when we launched the project back in 2013.
In October 2016, a subscriber wrote to us with a call to pay attention to the flagrant act of vandalism in the city of Zainsk in Tatarstan - during the "reconstruction" of the local recreation center "Energetik", they began to cover the mosaic panel of monumental artists Rashid Gilazov and Valery Tabulinsky with ventilation façade slabs for over thirty years. building's facade. The fasteners installed by that time had already damaged a significant part of the panel (see photos here).
We immediately shared this sad news with our audience, but, I confess, we had little faith in a positive outcome. Every year, all over the post-Soviet space, works of monumental art are thoughtlessly and cruelly destroyed - how does this seemingly differ from others? However, very quickly, groups of caring residents of Zainsk joined a large number of indignant subscribers, and one of the authors of the panel, Rashid Gilazov, expressed concern and began to monitor the situation. A real campaign to save the mosaic was launched - a petition was formed, the problem was covered by various media more than ten times, a wave of protests in the city became the basis for public hearings.
The results were simply amazing - in November 2016, the Zainsk administration decided to dismantle all the installed structures and carry out the restoration of the mosaic panel, and the Ministry of Culture of Tatarstan organized the work necessary to make a decision on including the mosaic in the register of cultural heritage objects. This story with a positive ending convinced us that it is imperative to fight the barbaric attitude towards the heritage of a still underestimated period in the history of Russian architecture.
Taking this opportunity, I would like to once again express my gratitude on behalf of the Sovmod project to all the subscribers and residents of Zainsk who responded, and separately to Daria Makarova, who launched the process of saving the work of Soviet monumental art!
