With the kind permission of DOM publishers, we publish an excerpt from the book “Abdula Akhmedov. Philosophy of Architectural Space”.
Chukhovich, Boris. Abdula Akhmedov in Moscow: Paradoxes of Creativity in Post-Exile // Muradov, Ruslan. Abdula Akhmedov. Philosophy of Architectural Space - Berlin: DOM Publishers, 2020; ill. (Series "Theory and History"). - S. 109 - 115.
For the hagiographer, striving to present the life of the master in a favorable way, the Moscow period (1987-2007) of Abdula Akhmedov's work presents no particular problems. At this time, the architect became the author of an impressive number of various implemented projects and bids, actively participated in the life of the Union of Architects and the Academy of Architecture, in fact, he headed the large architectural institution GIPROTEATR, and then - his own architectural bureau. In terms of the volume of the built and projected, the Moscow period, perhaps, surpasses everything that Akhmedov did earlier. At the same time, this stage of the architect's work is very difficult to understand: it differs too strikingly from the previous decades, when Akhmedov became an emblematic figure of Soviet architecture. It is difficult to explain why the artist, who withstood the pressure of the administrative Soviet system and did not succumb to the Orientalist temptations to which even the radical innovators of the 1920s were inferior in Central Asia, suddenly departed from his professed creative principles and showed extraordinary stylistic flexibility in the market. At the end of his life, the architect himself admitted that “it was easier for him with a former official or customer who went through a certain life school, had a healthy taste, knew how to listen to a professional than with the current self-confident upstarts and nouveau riches”, and complained that “we have, unfortunately, a dependent profession … However, these words are unlikely to fully explain what happened to him in Moscow.
The explanations available today from critics and colleagues are rooted in the 1990s with their cult of "freedom of creative expression" allegedly provided by the onset of capitalism. So, Vladilen Krasilnikov, explaining the sharp zigzag in the work of the architect, writes: “Many wanted Abdula Ramazanovich to always design in the style of a library in Ashgabat, and he always wanted to design in the spirit, not in the style of a library, in the spirit of author's shaping, in the spirit of individual expression of architectural composition”. On the other hand, many critics preferred not to explain anything at all, confining themselves to stating the transfer of the apostle of Soviet modernism to the camp of either postmodernists or representatives of Luzhkov's architecture. Akhmed's structures were often ranked as “bad” [1] or even “ugly” [2] architecture. The questions that arose when assessing the evolution of a master turned out to be so ambiguous that the point of view of one and the same specialist on them could seriously change. Thus, the well-known critic and historian of architecture Grigory Revzin first gave derogatory assessments of the building of Avtobank under construction on Novoslobodskaya (“decorative tricks of Akhmedov”, “profanation of the topic caused by the illiteracy of masters” [3]), but then called the same building an “interesting example” "Postmodernism of the American sense" "in its pure form" [4]. The problem was felt by many, but it was not clear how it should be interpreted, as well as whether it personally characterized Akhmedov or all representatives of his generation who happened to work in Soviet design institutes and then in the era of the rapid restoration of capitalism.
-
zooming 1/12 State Library of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat Photo © Boris Chukhovich
-
zooming 2/12 State Library of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat Photo © Boris Chukhovich
-
zooming 3/12 State Library of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat Photo © Boris Chukhovich
-
zooming 4/12 State Library of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat Photo © Boris Chukhovich
-
zooming 5/12 State Library of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat Photo © Boris Chukhovich
-
zooming 6/12 State Library of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat Photo © Boris Chukhovich
-
zooming 7/12 State Library of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat Photo © Boris Chukhovich
-
zooming 8/12 State Library of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat Photo © Boris Chukhovich
-
zooming 9/12 State Library of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat Photo © Boris Chukhovich
-
zooming 10/12 State Library of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat Photo © Boris Chukhovich
-
zooming 11/12 State Library of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat Photo © Boris Chukhovich
-
zooming 12/12 State Library of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat Photo © Boris Chukhovich
Indeed, the sharp social breakdown at the turn of the 1980s – 1990s was reflected in the work of many architects. For example, Felix Novikov left the profession, not wanting to accept the new rules of the game. For them, both postmodern decorating and the dictatorship of an entrepreneur-client with his kitschy tastes, in most cases requiring a return to the historicism of the Stalinist era, were unacceptable. Others, abandoning the asceticism of the Soviet era, rushed with great interest to master new stylistic and technological possibilities - an example of such metamorphoses is usually called the work of Andrei Meerson, who, after bright structures within the framework of the Soviet international style and brutalism of the 1970s, managed to switch to the so-called Luzhkov architecture.
There was, however, another galaxy of modernist architects, whose creative views took shape in the 1960s and 1970s on the so-called Soviet periphery. In the new conditions, their evolution continued without sharp concessions to post-Soviet kitsch and the tastes of new customers. Among these, one could mention the close friends of Abdula Akhmedov: Sergo Sutyagin from Tashkent and Jim Torosyan from Yerevan, whose work in the 1990s and 2000s was marked by new notable projects focused on the development of regional features of the modernist language.
During the Soviet years, these masters moved in parallel courses in their local spaces, but continued to gaze intently at each other's work. Within the framework of Soviet architectural life, they occupied the same niche: architects from the "national republics". Both Soviet aesthetics and local authorities pushed them to create a "national architecture" specific not only for climatic, but also for the cultural characteristics of a particular location. It was not only useless, but even harmful to match the Moscow architects in this respect, given the orientalist nature of the decisions that descended from Moscow into regional contexts. This explains the lively ties between the architects of the “peripheral republics”, which were still underestimated in full within the framework of the history of architecture. It is no coincidence that Abdula Akhmedov left in his notes a place for future chapters of his autobiography dedicated to his collaboration with Mushegh Danielyants and his not fully appreciated connections with Armenian architecture during the construction of the Karl Marx Library.
The common problems that the modernists of the "Soviet periphery" were working on formed a kind of community with specific values, codes, communication, which fits well into the notion of Pierre Bourdieu's habitus. If in the 1960s-1980s Akhmedov remained in the center of this circle, then after moving to Moscow he was already significantly different from his friends who remained to work in the former “periphery”, even if they continued to have warm personal relations. In Moscow, thoughtful work on regional forms of modernism was losing its relevance.
In general, "displacement" is not the best term to describe what happened to Akhmedov after he was forced to leave Ashgabat. In Moscow, the architect found himself at the end of the Soviet era. However, unlike many colleagues from the national republics, who often perceived the move to Moscow as a career success, the former chief architect of Ashgabat actually ended up in the capital of the USSR against his will. A sharp conflict with the leader of Turkmenistan, Saparmurad Niyazov, who would soon become one of the most extravagant characters in the post-Soviet political scene, made Akhmedov's departure from the republic almost inevitable. And although in Moscow the architect found himself in a professional environment that was well known to him, the circumstances of the change of place make it possible to define the departure of the architect from Turkmenistan as an exile. Therefore, some keys to understanding the Moscow period of his work could be gleaned in such a field of modern humanitarian studies as Exile Studies.
Exile Studies is a relatively new and dynamically developing area of the humanities, including, in particular, the study of the specifics of the artistic experiences of people outside the cultural and social context in which they grew up and a significant part of their life. It should be noted, however, that this direction mainly concerns the creativity of artists of the word. Their expulsion is complicated by the need to work in a different linguistic context, which significantly alters the aesthetics of their imaginative means. By analogy with the expulsion of writers, the expulsion of cinematographers, visual artists, and musicians is often considered, which once again reveals a certain literary centricity of this research area. It is not surprising that studies of the work of exiled architects are an order of magnitude less than that of other artists. For two reasons, architecture is harder to fit into Exile Studies than any other art form.
On the one hand, this is the least literary type of creativity, about whose "language" one can speak only with a great deal of convention. On the other hand, architecture is always closely associated with power, and this often prevents exiled architects from both getting jobs and bringing specific exiled motives and plots into their work. Actually, therefore, the activities of architects in foreign cultural contexts have long been viewed through the prism of transculturalism (the latter served as a standard optics in the descriptions of the works of Italian architects in Moscow and St. Petersburg of Tsarist times), and recently - through the prism of the concept of "cultural transfers" proposed by Michel Espagne [5] and is actively exploited today on both sides of the Atlantic. There were, however, exceptions.
The iconic architectural exile in the collective imagination was the exodus of the Bauhaus leaders from the Old World after the Nazis came to power. Having settled in the universities of North America, they seriously contributed to the implantation of the ideas of modern architecture into the American soil.
However, many aspects of the activities of Mies van der Rohe, Walter Gropius and other Bauhausists in the new context indicate a radical difference between their emigration from the exile of, say, Thomas Mann or Bertold Brecht. The latter, as you know, were driven by the idea of opposing Hitlerism with a certain "other Germany", and after the end of the war they returned to their homeland. The Bauhaus leaders, on the contrary, were the bearers of a universal project, ready for its implementation anywhere in the world (they even offered their cooperation to Hitler, and it was not their merit that he saw signs of "degenerate art" and "a product of Jewish influence" in modern architecture). As refugees politically, they were not exiles when it came to their work on a new architectural language. Once in the United States, Palestine, Kenya and other countries of the world, the protagonists of the new German architecture behaved like agents of modernization. They did not try to adapt to current architectural practices, but, on the contrary, sought to radically modernize the host countries in accordance with the normative aesthetics that were developed in Germany in the 1920s.
Representatives of the metropolises in the colonially dependent countries behaved in the same way. Following the fashion generated by Exile Studies, some researchers today try to portray the fates of Michel Ecochar or Fernand Pouillon - French architects who worked in the Maghreb countries before and after their political independence - as exiles [6], which seems partly true due to some biographical circumstances (for example, Pouillon was forced to leave France and go into hiding in Algeria due to criminal prosecution in a confusing story with financial scams of his partners). As for the creative life of these masters, it remained a part of the kulturtrager modernization project of modern architecture, and in this regard, the “exiles” continued to behave in a didactic and civilizing manner.
Researchers, however, have recently come across cases of a more accurate correspondence between the works of architects in exile and the aesthetics that were studied in Exile Studies. For example, in a book dedicated to the Norilsk period of creativity of Gevorg Kochar and Mikael Mazmanyan, two protagonists of the Armenian section of VOPRA, who were exiled to the northern camps during the Stalin years, Talin Ter-Minasyan emphasizes the connection between the urban planning of Yerevan during the era of Alexander Tamanyan and those ensembles that were built by Kochali in Norilsk [7]. Taking into account the radical differences in the climate of Armenia and the subarctic Far North, the Yerevan reminiscences of Norilsk look like a lyrical phantasmagoria with mixed chronotopes, which, in fact, is the basis and essence of the aesthetics of exile [8].
The above examples are enough to emphasize that the work of the representatives of the “European center” on the “periphery” is in fact not exiled, regardless of whether the transfer to another context took place in a violent or voluntary form. The dominance of European culture has always provided immigrants with sufficient authority and strength to remain agents of modernization. On the contrary, the movement of architects from the imaginary “periphery” to another “periphery” or to the former “center” was fraught with a situation of exile itself, during the development of which the artist found himself face to face with external cultural hegemony and had to somehow react to it. It is in this vein that it would be interesting to consider the Moscow period of Abdula Akhmedov's work.
Moscow was not a foreign city for the architect: Soviet mythology linked with the capital of the state many specific meanings and values that were significant for all residents of a huge country, regardless of their attitude to official propaganda (“on Red Square,” as Mandelstam once wrote, “the earth is rounder "). In addition, during his studies, Akhmedov often visited the capital, underwent pre-graduation practice there and got an idea of the work of Moscow architectural institutions in the late Stalinist period. However, later, in Ashgabat, he came to the conviction that a true creator working for the city should be part of his polis. Therefore, he had a sharply negative attitude to such widespread Soviet (and international) practice as "touring design". He was outraged when not only Muscovites, but even Tashkent residents undertook to build in Ashgabat, although the latter in some ways were close to both the Ashgabat climate and the "Central Asian multiculturalism" of the capital of Turkmenistan. Thus, in the Soviet years, Akhmedov wrote: “Oddly enough, the Tashkent Zonal Institute is developing one project of the Intourist hotel for 500 places for Ashgabat, Dushanbe, Bukhara and Frunze. Moscow organizations were entrusted with the design of buildings for a circus for 2,000 seats, the Turkmen Opera House, the VDNKh complex of the Turkmen SSR, and the building of a music school. Heads of the Committee for Civil Engineering and Architecture M. V. Posokhin and N. V. Baranov have never been to Ashgabat, they do not know local architects well enough, but for some reason they had an unfavorable opinion about our capabilities. " And further: “We are not going to belittle the value of the work of the capital's designers or architects of other cities. But I, an architect living in Ashgabat, have no desire to design even the most interesting object for another city. Because I do not know him, I am deprived of the opportunity to trace to the end how my plan would be realized”[9].
And at the final stage of his life, the architect had to see the inside of this situation. After leaving Ashgabat, which was given 34 years of life, at the end of 1987 he and his family settled in Moscow and immediately got involved in the work for new contexts (so, only in 1990 he designed structures for Minsk, Dusseldorf, Derbent, Sochi, etc..). In terms of formal civil status, Akhmedov was not an exile - Moscow remained the capital of the country in which he was born and worked. However, culturally and creatively, it is difficult to imagine something more strikingly different from Soviet Ashgabat than the former Metropolis of the socialist world with its unrelenting imperial, universalist and messianic ambitions, painfully exacerbated in the era of the restoration of capitalism. And Akhmedov himself admitted: “You see, I am a provincial, and for me Moscow is a special city, one of the centers of the earth. This is how I was brought up, this is how I look at her all my life”[10].
Poexil, a Montreal-based research group, developed general ideas about the aesthetics and creative expression of exile, which includes several stages: exile itself, post-exile, diaspora art and nomadism. A migrant artist is by no means doomed to consistently go through all these stages.
Judging by how quickly Akhmedov became involved in the orbit of Moscow institutions and began practical work in them in leadership positions, the stage of "exile" itself was passed by him extremely quickly and in a latent form. But the aesthetics of post-exile, with its polymorphism and eclecticism, is outlined more visibly in many of his works.
Of course, the imposition of different, and in many ways opposite, stylistics is characteristic of all Moscow architecture of this period. Moscow's “lessons of Las Vegas,” “postmodernism,” and other fads, digested with appetite, were generally characterized by chaos and an abundance of ingredients used. In this sense, Akhmedov was not the only migrant and exile on the architectural scene. After the collapse of the USSR, his entire generation found itself in a situation of “emigration of the country from the artist,” as the Uzbek writer Sukhbat Aflatuni put it. However, the quirks of "Luzhkov's architecture", "Moscow style" and other quirks of the transitional era, when late Soviet modernism was converted into the architecture of new capitalism, echoed in Akhmedov's work in a very specific way, and therefore, even while remaining within the framework of general Moscow trends, it can be described in within their own individual logic.
One of the key researchers of the aesthetics of exile, Alexi Nuss, wrote: “Exile has one territory: the exile either remains attached to the abandoned country, or seeks to dissolve in the newly acquired one. Post-exile allows for crossed ambiguity in recognizing many of its identities. […] This is how Rene Depeestre refers to the image of Russian nesting dolls embedded in one another, talking about his routes from Haiti to France, through Havana, San Paolo and other capitals. […] Nabokov: Russia - England - Germany - France - USA - Switzerland. Is unambiguous self-identification preserved in such cases? The multi-migrant takes with him a lot of suitcases and overcoats, as well as a lot of passports. His nostalgia has many faces, it is a cross between languages and cultures”[11].
That is why creativity in post-exile is like a dream, in which the characters and the objectivity of one culture freely enter into bizarre, impossible, phantasmagoric relationships with other characters, cultures and languages. Memories in post-exile are difficult to separate from the eccentric dreams of the imaginary: two or many chronotopes here coexist in the most bizarre combinations.
Once the central esplanade of the capital of Turkmenistan and the "Ashgabat Parthenon" overlooking it from the side were clearly read by contemporaries as a space of new Soviet sacredness, with the mean brutal forms of the square and the temple of knowledge and art growing out of it. In Moscow, the architect does not abandon this topic, but solves it more conservatively, through allusions to the priority theme for the new Russian government “Moscow, the third Rome”. This theme is especially clear in the project of the hotel, business and sports complex on the territory of the stadium of the "Serp and Molot" plant (1993). In this completely Las Vegas multipart composition, one can see a circular colonnade reminiscent of the Vatican, and a concentrically tapering geometric paving pattern, citing Capitol Square, and public spaces of "forums" and almost Domitian's stadium. Centric "temples" - round and pyramidal, as well as propylaea overlooking the main square were erected right there, surrounded by colonnades. This verbose composition, in which there is both the monumental theatricality of Boule and the utopian flair of VDNKh, is characterized by an absurd excess, but it lacks the inner humor and irony that prompted critics to see in the works of the legislators of the “Moscow style” an intellectual fig in a pocket addressed to an illiterate customer. This kind of humor was available to those who spoke their native language - Akhmedov came from afar, and, despite all the relaxed formal means, he could not treat architecture as a theater of positions: he completely preferred Ashgabat's seriousness to the Moscow carnival. Is that the "Moscow spire" in the form of an elongated pyramid, placed on a gilded skyscraper in the spirit of the upcoming Trump Towers, makes you smile a little.
The Ashgabat path, with its setting on the temple monumentality, continued to shine through in most of Akhmedov's buildings in Moscow, no matter what quotations he used. For example, the compositional basis of the shopping and business complex on Borisovskiye Ponds (1996), located between the sleeping areas of Maryino and Orekhovo-Borisovo, was a combination of "Halicarnassus mausoleums", "Roman forums" and skyscrapers with elongated pyramids, associated either with a church tent, not then with the "Moscow spire". At the top of one of the skyscrapers was a Greek peripter.
In such bombast, the desire to unite at a stroke that which has been layered for centuries in historical European cities, one can see two intentions: a conscious desire to express those ideological imperatives that led to the formation of the "Moscow style" of the 1990s - early 2000s, and the phantasmagoric world of labor a migrant who first lost his territory, and then his identity. His new identity, with all the imaginary cultural layers with which he associates himself, has become the only territory that belongs to him. The abandoned and acquired worlds in his imagination formed with what he was deprived of, and all this was formalized in strange combinations, which often had the appearance of an incongruous dream rather than a clearly perceived conceptuality.
In this regard, in the Moscow works of Akhmedov, I would especially like to emphasize the residual effect of the orientations of the architect of the sixties, who once spent decades modernizing the “eastern republic” through the development of regional forms of brutalism. With an awkward feeling of being a "provincial" in Moscow, he remained a confident modernist in the perception of European values as his own. This is how one can explain the cross-cutting theme that runs through many of Akhmedov's Moscow projects: his modernity has turned into a pedestal for classics.
So, in the project of an office building in Nikitsky Lane (1997), you can see pedestals inlaid into the composition at the level of several floors with Aphrodite of Milo and Nika of Samothrace placed on them, and the corner end of the structure turned out to be a seven-story pedestal for a gilded Ionic column, which became the crowning spire …
Another end-to-end seven-story "column", in the project of an office building on Baumanskaya Street (1993), itself became a pedestal for the likeness of an antique vase. Earlier, in 1990, the Greek peripter crowned a completely modernist complex in Dagomys, in which Akhmedov proposed to place a center of resort business and tourism.
The already mentioned "Avtobank" on Novoslobodskaya (1997-2002) became a pedestal for a fragment of a certain "portico". Another Aphrodite of Milo, the two halves of which were divided and suspended with a shift in the space of the postmodern "rotunda", can be seen in the extravagant reconstruction project of Smolenskaya Square (2003). Perhaps this decision was inspired by the Ashgabat experience of cooperation with Ernst Neizvestny, who hung another Aphrodite - the Parthian Rodoguna - from the ceiling of the third floor of the Ashgabat library.
Finally, in developing the details of the complex of office buildings in the Yakimanka area, the architect envisaged not only a “monument to the Ionic column”, but even a “horse monument” erected along with a pedestal on the roof of one of the structures. Strikingly, this bizarre reinterpretation of the European type of an equestrian monument that has lost its rider merges with the cult of the horse in modern Turkmen urbanism, orchestrated under the leadership of Turkmenbashi and then Arkadag.
Thus, in spite of the visible abyss that separated the Ashgabat and Moscow periods of Akhmedov's work, latent connections can be traced in them. It is clear, however, that it is incorrect to describe these two periods as the linear evolution of the "free artist". In addition to the difference in cultural contexts, social tasks and professional roles that determined the work of an architect in the capitals of Turkmenistan and Russia, there was something intimate and, probably, unconscious, which made it possible in Moscow that in Ashgabat remained an absolute taboo for Akhmedov. This is especially true for the reuse of historical styles of classical architecture. For example, the architectural complex on Borovitskaya Square (1997, together with M. Posokhin Jr.) included another column monument with a sculpture of Victoria on a ball, colonnades à la Bazhenov, triumphal arches and gilded domes.
The same ambiguous combination is reproduced in the project of a shopping and leisure complex on Tverskoy Boulevard: here already two "pillar" columns are adjacent to a Greek peripter, a semicircular "Roman colonnade", a chapel with a gilded onion and a "deconstructed" portico with an absent extreme column, etc. e. The architect resolutely opposed such architecture in Ashgabat, and in Moscow became such an ardent adherent of it that even the Moscow authorities considered these projects excessive. The irony of the situation was that the unrealized neo-Stalinist plans of the former master of Soviet modernism, rejected by the Moscow authorities, to a certain extent coincided with what was already implemented in Turkmenistan as the official architectural style of eccentric autarchy without his participation.
It is also interesting that the Moscow projects, in which Akhmedov adhered to more strict modernist forms (residential complex in Khoroshevo-Mnevniki, 1997-2003; A. Raikina, 2003-2007, and others) also got their "brothers-in-arms" on the Ashgabat streets. Las Vegas omnivorousness, which includes an interest in modernism as a historical style, is not alien to Turkmenistan as much as it is to modern Russia. Of course, the exiled keys to understanding the Moscow period of Abdula Akhmedov's work are not the only ones. The turn of the 1980s and 1990s, which put an end to Soviet urban planning experiments, was too ambiguous a time for the works of its protagonists to be considered in only one optics. Nevertheless, it would be wrong not to take into account the peculiarities of Akhmedov's forced relocation when analyzing the paradoxes that characterize his Moscow work. Architecture, of course, is the most social form of art, but the subconscious and intimate still plays an important role in the work of the architect. [1]Malinin, Nikolay. Revived confusion instead of frozen music // Nezavisimaya gazeta. 06.03.2002. URL: https://www.ng.ru/architect/2002-03-06/9_buildings.html [2]Orlova, Alice. The seven ugliest buildings in Moscow // Know Reality. 02.06.2017. URL: https://knowrealty.ru/sem-samy-h-urodlivy-h-zdanij-moskvy/ [3]Revzin, Grigory. The Return of Zholtovsky // Classics Project. 01.01.2001. URL: https://www.projectclassica.ru/m_classik/01_2001/01_01_classik.htm [4]Revzin, Grigory. Between the USSR and the West // Polit.ru. 12.11.2008. URL: https://polit.ru/article/2008/11/12/archit/ [5]Espagne, Michel. Les transferts culturels franco-allemands. Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1999. (Espagne, Michel. Franco-German cultural transfer. // Espagne, Michel. History of civilizations as a cultural transfer. - M., New literary review, 2018. - pp. 35–376.) … [6]Ghorayeb, Marlène. Transferts, hybridations et renouvellements des savoirs. Parcours urbanistique et architectural de Michel Écochard de 1932 à 1974 // Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère [En ligne], 2 | 2018, mis en ligne le 10 septembre 2018, consulté le 15 octobre 2018. URL: https://journals.openedition.org/craup/544; DOI: 10.4000 / craup.544; Regnault, Cécile; Bousquet, Luc. Fernand Pouillon, le double exilé de la politique du logement // Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère [En ligne], 2 | 2018, mis en ligne le 01 septembre 2018, consulté le 14 septembre 2018. URL: https://journals.openedition.org/craup/769 [7]Ter Minassian, Taline. Norilsk, l'architecture au GOULAG: histoire caucasienne de la ville polaire soviétique, Paris, Éditions B2, 2018. [8]Nuselovici (Nouss), Alexis. Exil et post-exil. FMSH-WP-2013-45. 2013. url: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00861334/document [9]Akhmedov, Abdula. The architect's palette // Izvestia. September 1, 1965. [10] Shugaykina, Alla. Moscow does not have its own style (Dinner with Abdula Akhmedov) // Evening Moscow. November 19, 1998. [11] Nuselovici (Nouss), Alexis. Exil et post-exil. FMSH-WP-2013-45. 2013. URL: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00861334/document, p. five.
