Is it possible to make an architectural exposition understandable and interesting both for professionals and for a wide audience? To what extent is it possible to solve this problem at Zodchestvo?
Sergey Kuznetsov: I have participated in many exhibition events both as a curator and as an exhibitor. And I can say that in terms of interestingness and quality of presentation of architectural material, the Venice Biennale is in the absolute top. This exhibition is made for people and hence its huge attendance. Achieving such a result is a difficult task that requires a highly professional team that is able not only to solve the whole range of exposition and program issues, including attracting “star” curators and participants, but also issues of interaction with the city, attracting funding, and so on.
The example of the International Architecture Festival WAF is also interesting and indicative. In mid-November, Paul Finch, one of the initiators and leaders of the WAF, will speak at the Cultural Forum in St. Petersburg, at the section "Creative Environment and Urbanism", which I supervise. Among other issues, we will discuss the possibility of holding one of the next festivals or a festival similar to WAF in Russia.
The most successful projects are distinguished by the collaboration of various institutions. Joining efforts and combining different points of view and approaches to the declared topic always enrich the exposition, giving it depth and versatility. And if I was faced with the task of organizing a festival like Zodchestvo, I would first of all invite the Pritzker Committee or Paul Finch to cooperate. I am sure that their participation, their combination in and Denia and experience with our texture could give a very interesting effect, and I am sure such an event would be popular among the widest audience. This effect - of a different attitude, more attentive, perhaps, to what they say or do there, continues to work in our country. It seems to me that it was he who worked with the Zaryadye park. The accolades in foreign media have led to a rapid rise in the popularity and publicity of the park.
It seems to me that Architecture in the form in which it is now - rather a professional workshop event, closed on itself and does not work in any way with the involvement of a wide audience, it would be very useful to adopt the experience of world architectural festivals, including in terms of cooperation with the world press and with world institutions.
The invitation to the jury of world-class architects and the development of a system for evaluating competitive projects, guaranteeing the absence of engagement, would be of great importance for raising the prestige of the prizes awarded at Zodchestvo.
But in general, I can say that Zodchestvo is actively developing and is trying to look for new formats in order to preserve this opportunity, which is really significant for many architects from various regions, to exhibit their projects and buildings, to meet with colleagues and discuss topical issues of the architectural and construction market. at this major architectural and urban planning event in Russia.
This work can and should be continued, adopting experience and cooperating with leading architectural institutions. Including our Committee for Architecture and Urban Planning of Moscow, which regularly shows its exposition at Zodchestvo, which reflects the brightest and most significant events in the architectural life of the capital. And we are ready to expand our participation, as we do at Arch Moscow, for example.
Do you think that there is a demand in Russia to create a kind of open platform in order to talk about architecture, its problems and achievements?
I believe that popularizing architecture is extremely important. In any format. You need to develop your media, your online publications, you need to go to people. Simultaneously with the problem of public ignorance of architectural policy and practice, there is another rather painful topic: the lack of interest in the architectural community on the part of the authorities, which does not consider this sphere an electorally significant factor. The absence of architecture in an active discussion field practically turns our field of activity into an information "invisibility". And the situation changes only occasionally, but even then more often not because of positive messages, but as part of some scandals, including those related to the historical heritage or the situation in the real estate market. In general, a very limited part of Russian society understands what architecture is, what role it plays in the cultural and economic life of the country, what an architect does, what his powers are, and so on.
How interested are the architects themselves in building such contacts and being present in the information field?
I'm afraid I must admit that most Russian architects do not know how and do not strive to present themselves and talk about their work. The most revealing example is the popularity data of various architects based on queries on Google. So, the most popular Western architect - Norman Foster has more than 60 million requests. And this is not just a happy coincidence or a tribute to fashion - it is the result of systematic work with the audience and self-presentation: publishing books, organizing exhibitions, interviews in publications and on television, filming documentaries. Together with the architect, the customers of his projects and even the authorities of the cities in which he built his buildings are involved in this activity. Architecture is part of the media space and works for the image of the city and even the country. Who among our architects wrote something popular, interesting, useful for the development of the profession, something that would make him noticeable? Glazychev was at one time. And now literally a few architects in Russia write and publish popular books about architecture or do exhibitions. The ratings for requests, even among our most popular architects, such as Grigoryan, Skuratov, Choban, are several times lower than those of their Western colleagues. Many Russian architects are in the position of creators, whose works should be loved by society automatically.
One gets the impression that in our country the situation with information about architecture and architects is fundamentally different from how the professional community lives abroad. To what extent is the foreign experience of organizing and conducting architectural exhibitions applicable in these conditions? Can we follow the example of the Venice Biennale or WAF? What can we engage in dialogue with the Pritzker Committee about? Maybe we should look for our own forms of presenting architectural information and it will take a long time to look for them?
It is clear that we are talking about a gigantic work, many years, in which all specialized institutions, including museums, must participate. But we must study experience, why this happens, why there are such stars, and we are not like that. We need experiments with the formats of architectural exhibitions and festivals, we need to look for ways of interaction and cooperation with federal and city authorities, and the business community. And this process is going on. The largest Russian cities host their own festivals and competitions, many of them at a very high level and with interesting findings in terms of the form of presentation of architectural materials.
On the issue of architecture presentation. Nowadays, architectural objects are often displayed and decorated in the same way as works of modern art. This is the basis, among other things, of the spectacular exposition of the Venice Biennale. How justified is this, in your opinion?
I would say that they do not show objects and projects, but names and meanings. Exhibition curators invite eminent architects and give them the opportunity to express topics that are relevant to them in an arbitrary, most often quite artistic and effective form. People are not interested in eating ads - they need to invite the viewer, if not to discuss, then at least to comprehend and feel the stated problem. People are interested in looking at installations that provide an opportunity for self-development, analysis and interactive involvement in the knowledge of modern architecture. See how the exposition was built by Alejandro Aravena or Rem Koolhaas. This is anything but presentation of projects.
And all that we can do here in Russia so far is to exhibit projects. So why be surprised if people don't want to look at it?
Perhaps the only way to overcome the current situation with the presentation of architecture may be the development of the institute of exhibition curators, who will professionally formulate themes and build expositions in accordance with a given idea. And the example of "Zodchestvo" confirms this, isn't it?
I think curatorial projects are the best that Zodchestvo has. And I really hope that this practice will continue.
Moskomarkhitektura is also trying to approach the creation of the Moscow exposition from the same conceptual positions. It is very important for us to identify the most relevant topic every time and find an original design solution for it. In fact, we strive to present a full-fledged curatorial project that reflects the architectural policy of the largest metropolis in Russia.
This year we will show the development of one of the mega-projects launched by the Moscow government in 2014 - the reconstruction of coastal areas along the Moskva River. Now we are at the stage of transition to the stage of implementation of several key elements of the project at once: the creation of an embankment on the territory of the ZILART complex, holding a competition for the embankment in Tushino and other projects for the development of coastal sites. Public presentation of projects, fixation in public perception and in the information field of the fact of their future implementation helps to speed up the processes and I really hope that the demonstration at the Zodchestvo festival will help in this.
