Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky
Architecture as art
Published in Russian: Заграевский С.В. Архитектура как искусство («Петербургские тезисы»). В справочнике «Единый художественный рейтинг», вып. 6. М., 2002.
The following text was translated from the Russian original by the computer program
and has not yet been edited.
So it can be used only for general introduction.
These abstracts were prepared for the
Architectural Forum, held in St. Petersburg in the summer of 2002. The author thanks the organizer of the forum, Alevtina
Telischevoy, for the opportunity statement, which received considerable
resonance among Russian and foreign participants. Unfortunately, this response was not only positive: when the
discussion of the topic presentation was continued at the "round
table", the chief architect of St. Petersburg Oleg Kharchenko defiantly
left the room, saying loudly that it can not be there, where they were offered
to declare Petersburg preserved area.
The author has refrained from commenting act Oleg Kharchenko and considers it his duty to publish a thesis statement in the form in which they were sent to the organizing committee of the forum.
* * *
Presentation Topic: "Problems of architecture as art in the modern social context. The experience of Moscow.
1. We give a general understanding of architecture as art, despite numerous recent theories that the architect works exclusively on the customer and determining the buildings is a functional component.
2. With regard to St. Petersburg this thesis is of particular importance as the protection of monuments of architecture is akin to storing works of art in museums. Even a small addition made to the monument, can radically alter his perception.
3. Who benefits take architecture function? Those who are trying to make money, building in security zones elite Office and residential construction and indulging immature tastes.
4. Who benefits relate to the architecture as an art? Is it only the intelligentsia (that is a question of profits does not go)? No - it is profitable and the State, and, paradoxically, the same merchants. They're seeking to build in historic areas, because there are more expensive per square meter. A meter more expensive there, because the historic area, that is a museum, that is prestigious. Consequently, traders actually understands that architecture is an art - only in terms of "natural capitalism" in Russia to neglect this for the sake of expediency.
5. And this is a task of the state - to protect historical buildings (especially at the stage of "natural capitalism"), because otherwise the country would not go to tourists. But tourism - is the country's image in the world and, consequently, improve the investment climate.
The historic building must be protected from many "spoilers", including from over-hype.
6. A similar situation is outside the historic zone - aesthetically pleasing house is usually a more elite.
7. But here we turn to the question already in the field of art history - what is considered an aesthetic appeal? What is a work of art? Positive answer to this question is much less than the negative. But clearly, for example, that a remake of the vast majority of cases, a work of art is not. What time is it in Moscow constructed remakes? ..
8. The artistic taste must educate, and here the important educational role of the state. Then the situation develops "ascending": customers to be more receptive to art and to demand from architects aesthetically attractive construction. And the architect for the enrichment of aesthetic content habitats are falling on fertile ground.
9. This process can go and "descendants". Stalin called writers "engineers of human souls" - hence his increased attention to artists in general and to the writers in particular. Some were killed, the other raised up. But look: not whether the situation is similar (though not as severe) today in the architecture? Do not play today's "elite" architecture of the imperial mentality (all levels), and whether such "engineering" dangerous for the young Russian democracy?
10. We say: what to do, we all understand, but here the interests of the city require ... Let's see: what the best interests of the city? Seals office building in the center? So it inevitably leads to the transport crisis, which Moscow has already encountered, and no rings are not saved. And soon it will face, and Petersburg, and will not save his new ring road.
11. How unzipped Center? Using architecture as an art. Giving the historical center for tourists, but to develop government-business multitsentrichnost. And to make the new centers of prestige, it is necessary to construct the building - a work of art, attracting the best architects, including western (though work on the outskirts of perspective, rather than rebuild the Mariinsky Theatre, and "New Holland").
12. In any case, full circle. Architecture in the present conditions does not lose its importance as one of the most important art forms.
© Sergey Zagraevsky