At the beginning of the meeting, Sergei Kuznetsov said that one of the two projects planned for discussion - the housing complex as part of TPU Michurinsky Prospekt - was removed from the agenda and sent back for revision. So the experts discussed only one story - about the installation of a sculpture at the Lianozovo station, the penultimate in the north of the Lyublinsko-Dmitrovskaya line (light green, No. 10) in front of Phystech. But the conversation turned out to be lively and long enough for a small question.
The architecture and design of the station were developed by Metrogiprotrans by order of Mosinzhproekt, so the project was presented by Nikolai Shumakov, recently, as Sergei Kuznetsov subtly reminded those present, who received the title of People's Architect. The station is a three-span, shallow column, with two lobbies, “compact”, according to Nikolai Shumakov, of the type now widespread in Moscow, with ventilation chambers directly above it.
To decorate the station, two compositions were proposed - their author Viktor Korneev was presented by Nikolai Shumakov as a world-famous sculptor, inviting those present to look through the catalog of works.
One of the sculptures proposed for placement in the metro - "Tasty Watermelon" - has already been exhibited; Its original material is wood, slightly tinted with strokes of white and red in the flesh of a watermelon. A boy with a large round head is dressed in a short overalls and sits, holding a bitten watermelon in his outstretched arms. Together with the name, it can be assumed that the boy does not just eat his slice, but shares, recommending: on, try it, delicious.
From our subjective point of view, it could resemble a Russian wooden, for example Perm, sculpture of the 18th century or Shemyakin Peter I in the Peter and Paul Fortress. The belonging of sculpture to contemporary art is quite undeniable - after all, this is Lianozovo, one of the key places in the 1960s underground; however, at the council, this analogy did not sound in any way, being left off-screen. Nikolai Shumakov explained the theme by the neighborhood of the children's park, and the author of the sculptures Viktor Korneev - as follows: "People go to work, from work … We had a desire to evoke a warm feeling in the viewer, in our life there are often not enough positive moments."
At the station, it was proposed to put the sculpture opposite the entrance to the escalator, increasing in size, deciding to be completely in red; plastic or fiber-reinforced concrete were suggested as materials.
After the first discussion with Sergei Kuznetsov, the authors, according to Nikolai Shumakov's story, reduced the sculpture to the size of an exhibition source and "raised it to a pedestal, reduced their desires … we also talked to the sculptor, he is ready to repaint from blood red." The color became golden yellowish, close to the color of the tree. Although red, as it sounded later, the sculpture became to attract attention, as did the increased size.
The second sculpture, depicting children on a swing, is planned to be placed above the same escalator, but somewhat lower - thus, going down, passengers will see first one, then the other.
Sergey Kuznetsov explained his decision to submit the idea of placing the sculptures to the council of architecture by some concern about the ill-will of passengers: about 50,000 people pass through the metro station a day, and "… if tomorrow photos of this sculpture appear on the Internet …" [read further - with negative comments] "… if I stood in the Tretyakov Gallery … But we put it in the metro, where there is another spectator." So the chief architect of the city proposed to consider “how appropriate it is to implement such a project not in a museum, but at a publicly visited object - a metro station”.
Let us note from ourselves that the doubts of the chief architect of Moscow, although they were expressed by him with the utmost delicacy, are humanly perfectly understandable: contemporary art does not always find wide recognition in post-Soviet Russian society.
However, the architectural council unanimously supported the idea of installing the sculptures. The arguments were distributed as follows: an artistic thing does not have to be in a museum, there are stations with non-standard sculptures in the Moscow metro, and, as Timur Bashkaev, who spoke first, already met both "putti" and girls with bare breasts in the metro, residents accept such a sculpture - "this is a gigantic merit of Nikolai Ivanovich: understanding the risks, still take the risk, support the tradition."
Meanwhile, Sergei Skuratov noted that contemporary art "passes by the metro," and the viewer, according to Alexander Asadov, needs to be educated. “This is some form of idiocy that we lack. It is important that oddities appear in the city, "Yevgeny Ass supported, who called the song" Buddha Sitting in the Metro "(the comparison with Buddha was immediately picked up by colleagues). Vladimir Plotkin gave an example of a new central metro station in Amsterdam.
Experts were equally unanimous in their desire to refrain from discussing the artistic qualities of sculpture itself and intrusion into the field of the sculptor's work. When Alexander Asadov, speaking in favor of a smaller version - a boy on a high stool, offered to support strengthening the "floating effect" that arises in him, Sergei Skuratov remarked: "We are not at the artistic council, let's not give advice to the artist", although he himself still could not resist from the sentence - “you don’t need to wear it”, there are already such examples in the Moscow metro [presumably, the comparison points to Romulus and Remus in the passage of the Rimskaya station, - approx. ed.]. In this Sergei Skuratov was supported by Evgeny Ass: "he dressed strangely looks", making a reservation, however: "God is with him, the sculptor did and did." But two pieces of watermelon, from the point of view of Evgeny Ass, are superfluous: they break the timeless peace and symmetry. Aleksandr Tsimailo summed up his gustatory remarks in a way - the sculpture may or may not be liked, it is a private affair of each viewer: “… it seems to me that it is good, but that does not mean anything.
Meanwhile, regarding a personal assessment of the preferred options, everyone spoke out one way or another: Alexander Asadov, as already mentioned, liked the smaller boy with a watermelon more, most experts liked the big one, and some also liked the red one. Although the color was not seriously discussed, they touched on the material: the arch council supported the idea of making the sculpture wooden, despite the words of Nikolai Shumakov, said at the beginning, about fire safety ed.]. Wood as a material for the first sculpture was also supported by Sergei Kuznetsov, saying at the press approach: “We are working on the issue. My opinion, what should be done in wood, of course, is unambiguous in the original material."
Opinions diverged more significantly regarding the second sculpture - children on a swing. It seemed to Alexander Asadov brighter than the first, to Sergei Skuratov, on the contrary - it reduced the effect of the boy with a watermelon, although the architect called the composition very good. Evgeny Assu "did not like the sculpture with a swing at all," he even called it "much more banal in some way."
The actual arrangement of the sculptures in space and their relationship with the architecture of the station caused the most comments from the council members. Mikhail Posokhin began to express them: “we need a video of the movement, the interaction of the escalator and the watermelon” (perhaps, thereby capturing a part of the immanent meaning of the sculpture, or maybe not). Sergey Skuratov's doubts turned out to be more tangible from the architectural point of view: “I am a little confused by the station’s unwillingness to accept the sculpture. Nothing can happen to architecture if a sculpture appears in it”, Evgenia Assa:“indistinct architectural environment”, Vladimir Plotkin:“no station, you need to soak dryness”; Alexandra Kudryavtseva: “We need some scenario of getting used to this artistic language so that the theme starts on the street, so that a person gets used to it”. All of them as a whole sounded like a proposal to rethink the architecture of the station to match the bright sculpture (here we recall the words of Vladimir Vysotsky about the ballads for the movie "Robin Hood", but let's not talk about that).
Another group of comments related to the location of the actual sculptures in space and their immediate surroundings. According to Vladimir Plotkin and Sergei Skuratov, it may be worth raising the ceiling or even making a hole in it above the monumental figure, creating an architectural space so that it is clear “how he got there”. Which, however, Sergei Kuznetsov countered, remembering the statue of Zeus in Olympia. Nobody supported the "halo" that appears above the boy's head in the form of a round lantern. According to Alexander Tsimailo, “the place should be specially created” - in this sense, the location of the second group in a niche was considered by the architect to be the best, since reverence for a work of art should be expressed in the space that surrounds it. Meanwhile, his colleagues on the Arch Council proposed to move the swing either to the street, since the sculpture is more likely a park, or to the platform, where it can be polished by hand, like the famous dog's nose or revolver system at the Revolution Square station. According to Evgeny Ass, it is also wrong that there are exactly two sculptures, it is by chance: “there must be more or one of them. If all this is about children, they should be present on the floor, on the walls …”.
Calmly listening to all the remarks, Nikolai Shumakov objected: "Naturally, all this was done on purpose" - in the middle of the most ordinary station, the bustle of people suddenly appears such a sculpture: "He is the same passenger, I do not want to make him any special framing."
Sergei Kuznetsov summed up the meeting saying that the idea of placing the sculptures has been accepted: "… This is unusual and strange, but this does not mean that there should be no strange things in the city." And he emphasized that unusual solutions attract attention. Thus, it is due to its architecture that Solntsevo has become one of the most visited metro stations, passed through exhibitions, and added popularity to the city and the region. “Our goal is to make the districts of Moscow more recognizable and the metro brighter. In a modern city we live with impressions, and the city is interesting because it has what is discussed. " And yet - “if we go for this provocation, station-provocation, let's see how it can be strengthened. Let's try how we can make the technique more radical."
So the discussion that started with apprehension ended in radicalization. I like the words “intensify the provocation,” Nikolai Shumakov said in conclusion. And that is true, after all, this is Lianozovo, although not a word was said about the Lianozovo group at the Arch Council.
