Archi.ru:
How do you, in principle, feel about premiums focused on the use of a single material, for example, brick, or concrete, wood?
Sergey Skuratov:
Or copper. I am very good. In general, I perceive buildings through several, let's say, prisms. In particular, through the prism of context - or through the prism of the material. Contests for houses made of brick or copper - why not, it's very good. Each material has its own secrets, not everyone succeeds in solving them and revealing the essence of the material. In addition, I think the jury evaluates not only the material or the way it is used, but also looks at what tasks have been solved in this or that project, how they are completed, and how the material helped in this. I think this is normal.
The modern facade is usually different from the building structure. The facade is in many cases a decoration. How then to evaluate the material?
The ability to use the same material for constructions, facades and interiors is what every architect dreams of.
But much depends on the specific situation, on the task and on the order. If you have ordered an elite house, requirements of exceptional aesthetics and high cost of facades and interiors are imposed on it. When it comes to a private house, we are more free in the choice of materials. You can make not only brick walls, floors, but also brick ceilings or even brick vaults. Of course, there is admiration for houses made "in the same breath", where the material - whether brick, wood or stone, manifests itself as a whole. Such as private
Jorn Utson's house on the Mediterranean, where everything is made of stone: both facades and ceilings.
Coming back to the brick: in In the 19th century, houses with an open brick facade were considered cheaper than, say, houses covered with plaster and even more stone cladding. Now brick has become an elite material for facade decoration. Don't you see a paradox here?
No, I don’t see. First, the brick of the 19th century, with a number of rare exceptions, absorbed water and required protection. Clinker bricks, which became widespread in the 20th century, are much stronger. With its help, you can achieve greater expressiveness of facades, you can make consoles, grilles, brick slopes and many other expressive elements. You can strongly remove the brick from the masonry without fear that it will crack or come off.
On the other hand, if you open some book on the history of brick, a huge number of monuments of world architecture are built of bricks and bricks are expressive on the facades. Take, for example, brick Gothic: XIII-XVI centuries in Northern Europe, Holland, Belgium. Of course, brick facades in Florence or Venice are preparation for stone. Meanwhile, in Bologna, for example - the city walls, arches, towers, a huge part of the city's architecture is made of bricks, it is very expressive and absolutely virtuoso. So the question is controversial: a lot depends on the place and on the tradition.
What is important for you in this material: the beauty of its texture, its ability to respond to the context or recall historical allusions?
Everything is important. To simplify: I really like brick houses. I feel and understand him. I understand how to create this or that image with a brick. There are few well-rendered and well-built brick houses in Moscow. It seems to me that adding brick buildings to the urban environment enriches it. It is a noble task to build brick houses: they are tactilely attractive, visually rich, and give a feeling of reliability. They decorate the space they enter - much more than houses made of stone or plastered. They contain many details that are important for modern architecture - unlike, say, the buildings of Soviet constructivism, which, in my opinion, are very poor visually.
You have been working with bricks for about 20 years. How would you characterize the evolution of your brick work? Say, before there were fragments of bricks, a combination of many different materials, and then everything came to some kind of brick sculpture?
Gradually, I came to monomateriality, for example, through the 5th Butikovsky, although there are still many different materials … The first was the courtyard facade of a house in Chisty Lane, where we tried to create a modern paraphrase of its historical facade. The first monomaterial home for me was "Danilovsky Fort". I wanted to make the atmosphere of this place warmer; it worked, and I realized that the brick is capable of creating a new environment. In Art House, in Garden Quarters, in Egodom, brick forms a new environment - no other material could cope with this task.
In addition, this is especially noticeable in "Egodom", brick helps to build "bridges" with industrial architecture, important and valuable for Moscow, associated with the heyday of the late 19th century. Of course, this is not about repetition, but about rethinking, we take the baton from the old prom, add warmth. The poetry of the wall and the details that are reflected there take some place in my mind.
Which of the masters XX century from your point of view worked well with brick
First, Aalto. Secondly, one of my favorite authors, simply unique, although not very famous - Eladio Dieste, 1950s - 1960s. Arches, vaults, wonderful plastic.
And Mario Botta?
No, I don't really like Botta, it's rather dry.
I like Zumthor very much. Herzog and de Meuron work brilliantly with bricks, for example, Tate Modern. They feel the material very subtly. A huge number of architects work great with bricks. In recent years, an incredible number of beautiful, virtuoso buildings have emerged from bricks.
Aravena showed arches made of raw materials for Africa at the Biennale
Yes, that's an interesting topic too. Considering the winners of the Wienerberger Brick Awards, I would say that there is more and more interest in the exotic in the world. On the one hand, to reduce the cost of construction, and on the other, to non-mass scale, to decisions tied to a specific country, economic situation and place. Why are there so many projects from Cambodia, Vietnam, Africa among the winners? Everyone is tired, everyone wants something handmade. It is no coincidence that houses arise from strata of clay, in Herzog and de Meuron in particular.
This is an anti-globalization trend …
Well, yes, things done in spite of are of interest.
What approaches do you think are "correct" and could help one or another building to gain recognition in such a competition as Wienerberger Brick Awards?
First of all, the use of the material must be motivated, due to internal reasons. There should be no material for the sake of material. There must be a solid justification as to why the house is brick. If the customers asked to make a building with brick cladding simply because it sells well - this is not a justification, it is just a cladding issue; It seems to me that such houses are not considered at all, they are not included in the short list. If there is no serious author's philosophy behind this, such a work, in my opinion, will not be considered at all.
In other words, should the material become a "message"?
I think so - the house itself must change to suit the material. If this does not happen, such a house, I think, is not interesting to study.
I developed this story for myself, translated it into a more artistic direction. We argued with Nikolai Lyzlov - he said that brick ceilings should not be made, that this is non-tectonic. I say, if you make a sculpture from one material, is it tectonic? I think that it is possible to prove non-tectonicity only by examples from the past, when technologies were very limited. On the other hand, there are many successful modern examples with brick ceilings and roofing. And with a brick floor, arranged "in the space".
Do you recommend your colleagues to participate in the international competition Brick Awards?
Of course I recommend. In general, we need to participate more in competitions. And the younger the architect, the more ahead of him, the more actively and diligently he must participate.
