Alexander Khomyakov paper architecture. Everything interesting in art and more

J. J. Lequet. Hunting lodge project

Bule. Opera Project

Bule. Newton's Cenotaph Project

Paper architecture- architectural projects that are not feasible in reality due to their technical complexity, cost, scale or censorship considerations. The most famous period of “paper architecture” is France during the Baroque and Classical eras.

“Paper architecture is the art of utopia. It reflects the boundless imagination of the author, being an experimental field of formal quest for artistic style."

Story

Giovanni Battista Piranesi is considered the father of this movement. During his life, he built only one building, but he created huge series of engravings with images of Roman and unprecedented architecture that he invented.

Utopian approaches are characteristic of neoclassical-baroque romantic thinking. In the history of art, similar functions are performed by the compositions of ornamental artists.

France

The utopian social ideas of the Enlightenment were expressed in the activities of megalomaniacs in France in the second half of the 18th century. These include the architects Ledoux and Bulle, who submitted obviously impossible projects for gigantic public buildings to competitions at the Paris Academy of Architecture.

Russia

A conceptual movement in architecture of the 80s, which emerged as an alternative to official Soviet architecture. It appeared when young architects began en masse to participate in competitions announced by Western architectural magazines and receive prizes. The projects existed only on sheets of Whatman paper, being truly “paper architecture”. Thanks to this, the authors freed their hands; ideas that could not be realized in construction were developed in the form of a purely artistic work. Enthusiasts, among them Yuri Avvakumov, Mikhail Belov, Alexander Brodsky, Totan Kuzembaev, Ilya Utkin, Mikhail Filippov and others, came up with their own architectural world.

The founders were Alexander Brodsky, Ilya Utkin, Mikhail Belov and Maxim Kharitonov. It all started in 1982, when Moscow architects Mikhail Belov and Maxim Kharitonov received first prize at the international competition “Exhibit House on the Territory of a 20th Century Museum,” which was organized by the Japanese magazine “Japan Architect.” In 1982-88, their work was awarded a number of prestigious international awards. The trend appeared along with the rise of free-thinking in the USSR, when by the end of the 20th century the communist regime began to weaken. Brodsky and Utkin in 1975 (3rd year) began working together to create a wall newspaper, in which they depicted some nonsense in the style of Bruegel or Bosch. Later they worked together and without effort completed tasks for all competitions from the late 1970s to the early 1990s in the style of a wall newspaper. For each task they developed one hundred options. They did not try to systematize their work or describe a certain manner - this is the task of others. The authors knew that their projects would not be realized, so they tried to make them graphically beautiful. According to Ilya Valentinovich, their activities can be divided into the childhood period, the period of competitions, then Japanese competitions, exhibitions.

The wallets were inspired by antique designs. Ilya Utkin admitted that they also liked Rob Cree (English) and Leon Krie (English) .

The term “paper architecture” was coined by Yuri Avvakumov. Ilya Utkin himself believes that this is not a special period in the history of architecture, but a natural movement of nature. Nothing new has been invented since the 20s of the century, but Avvakumov was able to collect all the drawings together and became the organizer of exhibitions in Moscow, Volgograd, Ljubljana, Paris, Milan, Frankfurt, Antwerp, Cologne, Brussels, Zurich, Cambridge, Austin, New Orleans , Amherst

Despite the short duration of the phenomenon called “Paper Architecture”, its total collection is very extensive. Therefore, curators have a great degree of freedom in combining her works both with each other and with works from other eras. For example, at the next exhibition, which is planned to be held at the Museum of Architecture, the works of the “papermen” can be seen together with the works of their predecessors - Soviet architects of the 1920-1960s. At the current exhibition at the Pushkin Museum, curators Yuri Avvakumov and Anna Chudetskaya placed 54 works of wallets in “company” with 28 architectural fantasies of masters of the 17th-18th centuries. from the museum's collection: Piranesi, Gonzago, Quarenghi and others. To unite in one space two eras of fantasy-architectural creativity, our contemporaries with their “forefathers,” according to Avvakumov, was the conceptual idea of ​​the current exhibition.

Russian Paper architecture is a rather specific phenomenon that had historical precedents, but not contemporary foreign analogues. This phenomenon was generated by the special conditions that developed in domestic architecture in the last decades of Soviet power. Being artistically gifted people, young architects, for well-known reasons, did not have the opportunity to self-realize in the profession and went into the “parallel dimension” of purely fantasy creativity.

The history of Russian Paper Architecture is inextricably linked with conceptual competitions held by OISTAT, UNESCO, as well as the magazines Architectural Design, Japan Architect and “Architecture of the USSR”. Their organizers sought to search for new ideas, rather than obtain solutions to specific “applied” problems. And the largest number of awards went to participants from the Soviet Union, who were able to draw attention to Russian architecture after a long break.

Unlike their predecessors (primarily the avant-garde artists of the 1920s and 1960s), the conceptualists of the 1980s did not strive to create utopian images of an ideal future. There was no futurological component in the works of the “papermen” - their teachers, the sixties, had already spoken exhaustively on this topic. In addition, the eighties are the era of postmodernism, i.e. reactions to modernism, which for several previous generations was “the future.” By the time Paper Architecture flourished, the “future” had already arrived, but instead of universal happiness, it brought disappointment and disgust. Therefore, “paper” creativity was a form of escape from the gray, dull Soviet reality into beautiful worlds created by the rich imagination of educated and talented people.

The specificity of Paper Architecture was the synthesis of expressive means of fine art, architecture, literature and theater. With all the diversity of styles and creative manners, most “paper” projects were united by a special language: the explanatory note took the form of a literary essay, a character was introduced into the project - the “main character”, the mood and character of the environment were conveyed by drawings or comics. In general, all this was combined into a kind of uvrazh, a work of easel painting or graphics. A special direction of conceptualism emerged with a characteristic combination of visual and verbal means. At the same time, Paper Architecture was associated not so much with parallel forms of conceptual art, but was, in fact, one of the varieties of postmodernism, borrowing both its visual images and irony, “signs”, “codes” and other “games” of the mind .

The name “Paper Architecture” arose spontaneously - participants in the 1984 exhibition, organized by the editors of the magazine “Yunost”, adopted a phrase from the twenties, which originally had a pejorative meaning. The name immediately caught on, as it played on two meanings. Firstly, all the work was done on whatman paper. Secondly, these were conceptual architectural projects that did not involve implementation.

A special place in the activities of the “wallets” belongs to Yuri Avvakumov, who played a key role in shaping an episode (albeit a bright one) of the cultural life of the 1980s. into a full-fledged artistic phenomenon. It was he who cemented the disparate participants into a single mass. An active creator himself, he served as a “clearinghouse,” a liaison, and a chronicler of the movement. By collecting an archive and organizing exhibitions, he brought the activities of the “papermen” to a fundamentally different level, turning it from a narrowly professional into a general cultural phenomenon. Therefore, it would not be much of an exaggeration to say that Paper Architecture is Avvakumov’s great curatorial project.

However, there was no movement as such - the “wallets” were too different. Unlike, say, the Pre-Raphaelites or the World of Art, they did not have common creative goals and guidelines - the “papermen” were a collection of individualists who worked sometimes together, sometimes separately. The only theme that united them was architectural fantasy, which makes them similar to Piranesi, Hubert Robert or Yakov Chernikhov.

Works of Paper Architecture, alas, are not very accessible to the general public. One of the reasons is the fundamental impossibility of their constant or even frequent exposure: unlike canvas, paper is very sensitive to light. Until a technological revolution occurs in this area, the hypothetical Museum of Paper Architecture will be virtual, which, in principle, is congenial to its very phenomenon.

It turns out that the less often Paper Architecture exhibitions are held, the more valuable they are. In this context, we must also consider the current one, in the Museum of Fine Arts, which occupies a cozy room behind the Greek courtyard. However, despite its intimate nature, the exhibition is quite capacious. Many works have been collected as “hits” (“House-exhibit for the 20th century museum” by Mikhail Belov and Maxim Kharitonov, “Crystal Palace” and “Glass Tower” by Alexander Brodsky and Ilya Utkin, “The Second Home of a Citizen” by Olga and Nikolai Kaverin), as well as those that have not been exhibited before (“Hedgehog House” by Andrey Cheltsov) or have been exhibited infrequently (works by Vyacheslav Petrenko and Vladimir Tyurin). Each exhibit requires careful examination, contemplation, immersion in it; behind each work there is a whole story, if not a whole world. Capriccios by old masters, including the famous “Prison” by Piranesi, occupy the central space of the hall, and “wallet” paintings surround them along the perimeter. Avvakumov’s choice is somewhat subjective - some of the “wallets” are not present (for example, Alexey Bavykin or Dmitry Velichkin), and some are presented more modestly than they deserve (I mean, first of all, Mikhail Filippov, who, in my opinion , created his best works in collaboration with Nadezhda Bronzova during this period).

Everything is clear with the first part of the exhibition title. But how to understand the second one - “The End of History”? After all, the “funeral” of Paper Architecture took place back in the early nineties. By uniting representatives of two different eras in one space, the curators wanted to draw a symbolic line under the five-century era of paper (the massive transition from parchment occurred about 500 years ago). Ironically, its final chord was Russian Paper Architecture. In the nineties, a new computer age arrived, which radically revised not only the design process, but also the entire architectural creativity. So future paper architecture will be paper only in an allegorical sense. At least until the lights go out.

The exhibition sponsor is AVC Charity.

Paper architecture are projects literally left “on paper” that were not implemented due to technical complexity, cost, scale or censorship considerations. The founder of this movement is considered to be Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-1778). He built only one building, but created a series of engravings depicting real and imagined architecture.

Alexander Brodsky, Ilya Utkin. Glass tower, etching, 1984/1990

In Russia, this term is associated with the conceptual direction in architecture of the 1980s, as well as with the curatorial activities of the architect and collector Yuri Avvakumov. In the Soviet Union, young architects took part in international competitions held by Western architectural magazines. Projects existed only on paper. This is how a special genre of fine art appeared - a combination of architectural design, conceptualism and easel graphics. Exhibitions of works by “paper architects” were held in galleries and museums in London, Paris, Milan, Zurich, Brussels, Ljubljana, Cologne, and Austin. Now their works are in the collections of the world's largest museums.

Mikhail Filippov, Tower of Babel. Paper, watercolor, 1989

Exhibition at the Pushkin Museum. A.S. Pushkina offers a historical dialogue between the projects of Soviet conceptualists and Italian classics of architectural fantasy. The exhibition presents 80 works of architectural graphics by famous masters of the 17th-18th centuries Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Giuseppe Valeriani, Pietro Gonzaga, Francesco Gradizi, Giacomo Quarenghi, Matthaus Küssel, Giuseppe Bibiena, as well as leading artists of Soviet architectural conceptualism - Yuri Avvakumov, Mikhail Belov, Alexander Brodsky and Ilya Utkin, Dmitry Bush, Totan Kuzembaev, Yuri Kuzin, Mikhail Labazov, Vyacheslav Mizin, Vyacheslav Petrenko, Andrei Savin, Vladimir Tyurin, Mikhail Filippov, Andrei Cheltsov, Sergei and Vera Chuklov.

Alexander Zosimov, collage No. 23. Paper, collage, 1990

Nikolai Kaverin, Olga Kaverina. The second home of the townspeople. Paper, ink, colored pencil, rapidograph, 1985

In the central part of the historical exposition of the exhibition are fourteen works by Giovanni Batista Piranesi (1720-1779). The work of the famous master of architectural fantasy is represented by the series “The first part of architectural and perspective compositions” and “Fantastic compositions of dungeons”. In these works, Piranesi achieves unsurpassed skill and high emotional tension. It is paradoxical that the sheets from the “Prison” series, underestimated during Piranesi’s lifetime, captured the imagination of people who saw them for more than two hundred years, inspiring the creation of literary, musical, and pictorial works.

Giovanni Batista Piranesi (1720-1778). Etchings from the series “The first part of architecture and perspectives”. Antique temple

In his essay “Piranesi or the Fluidity of Forms,” film director Sergei Eisenstein writes: “...Nowhere in The Dungeons do we find a continuous perspective view in depth. But everywhere the movement of a perspective recess that has begun is interrupted by a bridge, a pillar, an arch, a passage... A series of spatial recesses, cut off from each other by pillars and arches, are built as open links of independent spaces, strung not according to a single perspective continuity, but as successive collisions of spaces of different qualitative intensity of depth..." Noteworthy are the words of Piranesi himself, accompanying one of the presented series: "... since there is no hope that any of the modern architects will be able to do anything similar, either due to the fall of architecture from great heights, either due to the lack of patrons of this noble art, which is confirmed by the absence of buildings like the Forum of Nerva, the Colosseum or the Palace of Nero, and also by the fact that neither the princes nor the rich show any inclination to large expenses - I, like anyone a modern architect has no choice but to express his architectural ideas only with drawings.”

Giacomo Quarenghi (1744-1817). Pavilion-ruin in the park of Count A.A. Bezborodko in Palustrov. Pen, brush, ink, watercolor, pencil, 1791

The Italian architect Giacomo Quarenghi fully realized his talent in Russia. At the age of 35, Quarenghi came to St. Petersburg at the invitation of Catherine II as “architect of Her Majesty’s court.” Already in the first decade of his stay in Russia, the architect built the English Palace in Peterhof, a pavilion in Tsarskoe Selo, the buildings of the Hermitage Theater and the Academy of Sciences. The quintessence of Quarenghi’s entire work during the St. Petersburg period was the summer residence of Count Alexander Andreevich Bezborodko. The ruin pavilion was not only an exquisite object of contemplation, but also a subtle intellectual play with space and time. Images of distant antiquity, transferred at the request of the customer to the banks of the Neva, allowed visitors to the park to momentarily feel like residents of happy Arcadia, revealing an illustration folded in stone for the winged Latin expression “Et in Arcadia ego” (“And I was in Arcadia”).

Vivid episodes of European architectural history of the late 17th - early 19th centuries are represented by the works of theater artists - Giuseppe Galli Bibiena (1696-1756), Giuseppe Valeriani (1708-1762), Pietro di Gottardo Gonzaga (1751-1831), Francesco Gradizzi (1729-1793) and Giacomo Quarenghi (1744-1817). The work of most of the authors whose works are presented at the exhibition belongs equally to two countries: Italy and Russia. Pietro di Gonzaga, invited by Prince N.B. Yusupov to St. Petersburg, created scenery for coronations and court holidays, and designed performances. He was also the author of unrealized opera house projects. For Russia, Gonzaga became a true reformer of the Russian stage, boldly applying the illusionistic-perspective techniques of the Baroque. Gonzaga's architectural sheets amaze with their bold flight of imagination. Fluent with pen and brush, he anticipates the era of romanticism in many of his compositions.

To the same extent as the fantasy works of Italian artists of the 17th - 19th centuries, the conceptual projects of the authors of the second half of the 20th century, made specifically for international exhibitions, became a source of ideas for further generations of architects. The long-awaited freedom and interest of foreign experts contributed to the diversity of forms and subjects in the architectural fantasies of young authors. “For some, the paper project looked like a set of theatrical mise-en-scenes, for others like a revolutionary icon, and for others like a series of book illustrations,” exhibition curator Yuri Avvakumov comments on the works of the 1980s.

The title of the exhibition is “Paper Architecture. The End of History" correlates with the milestone state of today's architectural design. According to the curator of the exhibition, Yuri Avvakumov: “The age of paper as a material for architects has come to an end - the drawing board, paper, tracing paper, ink, pencil, drawing pen, rapidograph, eraser have been replaced by computer mice, monitors and images. So the place for Paper Architecture turned out to be where it is best preserved, that is, not on a construction site, but in a museum. And it is symbolic that its decline occurred at the end of the century and millennium.”

A special catalog is being prepared for the exhibition, which will be released in April 2015.

In the USSR, the “paper boom” arose during the period, in the words of art critic A.K. Yakimovich, “late Soviet civilization.” By the beginning of the eighties, the era of a rigid and uncompromising division into “ours” and “yours” gradually became a thing of the past, revealing “totalitarian anarchy” in the socio-political sphere, when confused and lost moods prevailed in society. In the book “Flying over the Abyss. Art, culture, picture of the world. 1930 – 1990” Yakimovich, to understand the context of fine art of the eighties, suggests paying attention to the work of the Soviet thinker Merab Mamardashvili “How I Understand Philosophy,” where the philosopher addresses the existential problem of a confused person. Yakimovich draws parallels with Mamardashvili’s thoughts on the topic of being and nonconformism, and we can go a little further and build a similar bridge to conceptual paper architecture.

Indeed, the subjects and moods that the “paper money” architects take into account are in many ways close to the ideas of Mamardashvili. The philosopher writes about the use of tradition, which creates the appearance of continuity of development, blurring the boundaries between “old” and “new”; he is concerned about the historical formation of man, his loneliness, total lack of independence: “he constantly returned to the theme of the anthropological catastrophe hanging over people. The thinker meant nothing more than a loss of orientation and the inability to rely on any criteria.<…>The human personality has become disorganized and vague." These theses found explicit or hidden reflection in the projects, experiments, and installations of conceptual architects. For example, the theme of “survival as a philosophical problem”, which is clearly visible in the graphics of Anatoly Zverev and Dmitry Pavlinsky, also appears in the works of wallets associated with subjects of imaginary stability, the creation of a home and the death of utopia.

Along with personal ones, the “paper workers” were also worried about professional problems, which they smoothed out by going into graphics: in the absence of real practice, the helplessness of the architect as an architect appeared, i.e. professional dysfunction was formed, the inability to be a master of his craft. And here, of course, the general crisis of self-identification and development of an artist, associated with the costs of postmodernism, is exposed. Although outwardly the papermakers cannot be called suffering, their work, no matter how banal it may sound, is rather a reflection of the era. Hide, take cover, dissolve, disappear - these are the main postulates, most often laid down not even by the wallets themselves, but by the organizers of competitions, which gave the opportunity to speak out and think about the topic.

Of course, when talking about a new type of philosophy in paper architecture, the question inevitably arises about the role of “papermen” in Soviet culture. Judging by the artistic criticism of that time, then until the end of the nineties, i.e. Before the decline in interest in paper projects, there was a widespread opinion that the “paper projects” were continuers of the architectural trends of the 1920s and 30s, and were reviving the utopian ideas of Soviet constructivists. Such a comparison suggested itself due to the fact that the place of “wallets” in Soviet culture remained unclear due to the short-term nature of the phenomenon. But now it is obvious that, apart from some similarities in style, the difference between these periods is great. Even if we look at the fantasies of Leonidov and Chernikhov, we will see work with forms for their subsequent embodiment in real buildings, while the “paper workers” simply do not have such a goal. “The projects of the 20s were a positive and constructive dream of the future, albeit temporarily unattainable for technical or other reasons, but retaining the desirability of implementation,” writes I. Dobritsyna. “The projects of the wallets, for the most part, did not openly join in this, insisting that their projects were free architectural fantasies and there was no point in realizing them.” By and large, the “papermen” of the eighties were not at the forefront of architectural thought and were not ahead of their time, but worked with the present, while reviving some images of a bygone era and carrying out a partial reminiscence of it.

A.G. Rappaport, whose efforts contributed to the paper architecture of the 1980s. quite accurately recorded both in the domestic and foreign press, constantly trying to draw a historical analogy for it. As if not believing in the independence of the phenomenon, in his recent article “Once again about paper architecture,” he proposes to compare the work of the “papermen” not with the constructivists, but with OBERIU, emphasizing the similarities in the use of scientific and philosophical culture by both sides. As an example, A.G. Rappaport cites the poem “Pointless Youth” by A.N. Egunov, a writer from the Oberiut circle. The irony of utopian consciousness, which became widespread in his poem, in his opinion, 50 years later moved into the paper projects of Moscow architects, allowing them to create a metaphorical poetic game using graphics. But the comparison of these philosophies is not entirely correct in its essence, since the historical conditions and the very existence of the Oberiuts and the “papermen” of the eighties are strikingly different: the latter, as a rule, came from intelligent, prosperous families, did not live in cramped conditions and were neutral towards authorities, which is felt in the non-politicized nature of their work, while almost all Oberiuts were subjected to repression.

It is interesting that in his early articles of the era of paper architecture A.G. Rappaport sought to shift the emphasis towards politics, which fueled interest in “wallets” in the West. If you look at the publications of those years, you can see that the domestic press, through the efforts of critics close to the circle of architects, was rather neutral, while the Western press (the East, despite the popularity of the “paper money”, also remained outside of political assessments) tended to attribute the “wall paper” to nonconformism era of post-totalitarianism. Foreign publications somewhat artificially insisted that paper architecture is a politicized protest, in particular, this can be seen from the catalogs “Postmodernism. Style and Subversion 1970-90" and "Papierarchitektur: neue Projekte aus der Sowjetunion". For example, in the latest catalog the following is written: “Paper architecture, of course, is only part of that nonconformist culture that is gradually gaining the right to exist in the USSR. The necessary revision of the principles of socialist realism is becoming one of the main problems for all areas of artistic activity.” However, the development of such thoughts can be found, including now, by looking at books on architectural postmodernism: “paper projects,” writes historian and architectural theorist I. Dobritsyna, “are a form of thinking about what set of ideas of existential content could express architecture through metaphor without being so constrained by economics and ideology.” And it seems that formally all this is true, but in relation to “wallets” this is said with unnecessary stretch. Ideology did not concern architects as much as was commonly believed in the West; this is now unanimously stated by the “papermen” themselves, who are not inclined to attach a nonconformist meaning to their youthful quests. For international competitions, of course, the political background was important, since interest in the closed country of the USSR was heightened, and therefore in every paper project they looked for features of infringement and discontent. However, the projects of the “wallets” calmly passed censorship and were sent to competitions far beyond the country’s borders, and, it is worth assuming, this was not at all due to the fact that, as Rappaport writes in articles of that time, censorship critics did not know how to react to these ironic work. It’s just that ideologically, the “wallahs” were not dissidents at all, but maintained imperturbable political indifference, showed initiative even in cramped circumstances in the absence of real creative work, ironically, but absolutely good-naturedly, making fun of Soviet realities.

Although, of course, it is worth noting that in terms of the type of organization, the use of artistic citation of cultural abstractions and concepts, and the predominance of the comic element, the “wallahs” are quite close to the circle of Moscow conceptualists, who are usually classified as unofficial art. With their daring and cheerfulness, the projects of the “wallets” are reminiscent of the works of D. Prigov, I. Kabakov, E. Gorokhovsky, E. Bulatov, V. Pivovarov. But if the work of the latter was often quite politicized, and their postmodernism was indirectly or directly addressed to power, then such a tendency was almost not observed among paper architects. Ilya Kabakov, who preserved “Notes on Unofficial Life in Moscow” in book format for the period of the 1960-70s, noted that both in the seventies and in the first half of the eighties, a distinctive feature of typical unofficial art, in addition to ideological positions and life in permanent fear, there was also a purely economic factor: as a rule, cramped life circumstances and the need to earn money by trying to sell paintings, doing book illustration, etc. “Paper” conceptualists received cash prizes for winning competitions; therefore, of course, apart from stylistic and symbolic moments, nothing else brings them closer to unofficial art. According to A. Yakimovich, the very division into unofficial and official art took place precisely not on stylistic grounds, but on sociopolitical ones: “whoever was not allowed to attend authorized official exhibitions or who himself did not want to participate in them became “unofficial”.” But in the 1980s. An entirely new type of artist began to emerge, one who pretended that the ideological imperative did not exist at all. It is precisely this type that the “papermen” began to gravitate towards, ignoring issues of ideology. They, as G. Revzin noted in a project dedicated to Mikhail Belov, were like hippies, lived in their own small commune and created the world and system around themselves. “Papermakers” are among the first to work in groups in conceptualism and paper architecture.

There is a theory that the culture of postmodernism is “radical conservatism”, which revives old aesthetic categories and plays with them in its own way. According to art critic A.K. Rykov, postmodernism encourages emotionality and pays great attention to quality criteria, welcomes originality and authorship, while abandoning the cult of novelty and the creation of new types of artistic creativity. In this sense, “wallets”, consciously following traditions, clearly represent the meanings of postmodernism, since they take forms that have become classics as a basis and add their own conceptual “filling” to them. Moreover, they play with dystopia, another characteristic of postmodernism, appropriating its ideas of destructive progress. But here there is also a discrepancy with postmodernism, which does not have a pronounced romantic beginning: moving towards irony, the “papermen” in their projects retain the opportunity for the author’s and spectator’s dreams, maxims and daydreams.

The era of paper architecture, ending in the early 1990s, canceled out all further development of this genre, as virtual architecture picked up the baton. Gradually, according to real, rather than fantasy, projects, the “paper workers” began to build houses in Moscow and the Moscow region, and many of them replaced drawing instruments with computer technologies. Multi-layer designs, axonometry, sections and plans captured in etchings are a thing of the past, and it is possible to immediately see the final object on the screen. And if the desired result can be carefully considered in 3D models, then the need to use allusions and symbols to reveal the image is a thing of the past. The current architectural fantasies (or, as G. Revzin calls them, “fantasies”), for example, of the futurologist Arthur Skizhali-Weiss, are already completely far from the philosophy that was formed in the 1980s, there is no intellectual game or joke in them, this simply a high-quality construction of a certain future on the ruins of the past, including the remains of conceptual paper architecture.

Now, a quarter of a century later, we can confidently speak about the influence of the “paper” stage on the creative biography of the founders of this movement. Alexander Brodsky from a “paper” architect became an artist: he reproduces atriums and fantastic structures made of glass and wood not in etchings, but in museum spaces, creating conceptual installations and art objects. Open to all winds, his huge wooden “Rotunda” stands in the Nikola-Lenivets Park, with its open form clearly reminiscent of numerous graphic villas created in collaboration with Ilya Utkin, who, unlike his colleague, founded an architectural studio and in reality builds residential country houses. At first glance, in his projects there is little left from the “paper” period, but sometimes the capitals and marble cladding seem to repeat the details of theatrical etchings or elements of the interiors of the Atrium restaurant. It is interesting that in 2011 I. Utkin together with P. Angelopoulou at the Museum of Architecture. A.V. Shchusev in Moscow created the installation “Children’s Reliquary,” apparently immersed in nostalgia for the conceptual games of the 1980s (Ill. 58). His “reliquary” is a precious chest, a real home for a child, where he can be left alone with his fantasies and keep his relics. Mikhail Belov, who already at the “paper” stage was balancing between neoclassicism and postmodernism, now adheres to the same sentiments in real architecture. Children's playgrounds in the Lego style in the spirit of Aldo Rossi (Ill. 59) coexist with classicist mansions and "imperial" and "Pompeian" houses, and the "English quarter" resembles the Towers of Babel. Mikhail Filippov, according to G.A. Revzin, continues the mood of “world of art Petersburg” in architecture, creating mansions in Moscow and new ski villages in Olympic Sochi. Dmitry Bush also operates with complex forms, but not in graphics, but when designing multifunctional stadiums. Former “papermen” no longer face the task of balancing on the brink of official and unofficial art or choosing the “third” path; they have gained fame and are free to choose an architectural direction, but in the absence of regular fantasizing on a given topic, it is now much more difficult for them to show their individuality, as this was in the “paper” period.

Conclusion

In putting forward the thesis that Soviet paper architecture of the 1980s became a sociocultural phenomenon, we took into account the context of Soviet realities, without making comparative analogies with foreign processes, since this is a separate, rather broad topic. However, in conclusion, it is appropriate to explain why international competitions were won mainly by “wallets” from the USSR. The fact is that in competitions held by Japan Architect, OISTAT or UNESCO, their works were presented mainly by architects under construction from Europe and the USA, who, in addition to competitive activities, were engaged in real design, while Soviet architects were completely concentrated on “paper” construction. Moreover, participants from the USSR numerically prevailed in these competitions, since the very first prizes they won aroused active interest and healthy competition among Soviet architects who were ready to fantasize for the sake of fantasizing, and were not burdened with current projects. Therefore, it is important that, despite the short duration and transience of the competitive period, it attracted a large number of architects starting their career.

The existence of the phenomenon of conceptual paper architecture in the 1980s in the USSR was due, firstly, to the lack of initiative in the real planning sector, secondly, to the participation of young architects in numerous international competitions, and thirdly, to the interest that arose in Soviet “paperbooks” at first abroad, and then in their own country, which provoked a long exhibition phase for them. Revived in 1984, the concept of “paper architecture” reached the international level, acquired a fundamentally different meaning and formed a new typology, since it combined rich cultural and historical allusions with trends characteristic of current artistic processes of that time. In their works, the “papermen” came close to revealing the very essence of the theme set by the competition, its ideas and poetics through architectural citation and a strong connection with literature, and “fantasizing on the theme” on such a scale and in such quality became a truly extraordinary phenomenon. The autonomy of conceptual paper architecture in the USSR in the 1980s is also confirmed by the fact that its philosophy remained independent and only partially coincided with the cultural paradigms of society, and socio-political factors influenced exclusively the topics raised in “paper” projects, but not the the structure of this direction. Thus, based on the study of the above materials and analysis of the historical context, it can be argued that Soviet paper architecture of the 1980s formed its own aesthetics and became a sociocultural phenomenon at the intersection of architecture and fine arts.

List of used literature

1. Avvakumov Yu. Paper architecture / From the collection. Bank "Stolichny" – M.: ART MYTH, 1994. – 19 p.

2. Avvakumov Yu. Russian Utopia: [website] – M.: Utopia Foundation, 2000-2014. – URL: http://www.utopia.ru/museum.phtml?type=graphics (access date 04/20/2015).

3. Airapetov A., Krikheli M. Fantasy-84 // Architecture of the USSR. – 1984. – No. 4. – 128 p.

4. Alexander Brodsky. Ed. Muratov A. // Project Russia. – 2006. – No. 3 (41).

5. Andreeva E. Postmodernism. Art of the second half of the 20th – beginning of the 21st century. – St. Petersburg: ABC-classics, 2007. – 488 p.

6. Architect Dmitry Bush [catalogue]. – M.: German Printing Factory, 2008.

7. Aureli P.V. Possibility of absolute architecture. – M.: Strelka Press, 2014. – 304 p.

8. Belov A. Architects of the Big City. Ilya Utkin // Big City. – 02/08/2013. – URL: http://bg.ru/city/arhitektory_bolshogo_goroda_ilja_utkin-17035/ (access date: 05/01/2015).

9. Belov A. History of paper architecture [portal archi.ru] – URL: http://archi.ru/lib/publication.html?id=1850569502&fl=5&sl=1 (access date 04/02/2015).

10. Belov A. List of Avvakumov. // Architectural Bulletin. – 2010. – No. 1 (112).

11. Belov M. Notes of a “paper” architect // Youth. – 1986. – No. 2. – P. 107.

12. Belov M. The original architectural project as a disappearing reality. Forgotten exhibitions. 25/CCXXV. [website]. – URL: http://arhbelov.ru/225сxxv/ (date of access: 04/23/2015).

13. Bylinkin N. P., Zhuravlev A. M. Modern Soviet architecture: 1955 - 1980. – M.: Stroyizdat, 1985. – 224 p.

14. Great Utopia: Russian and Soviet avant-garde 1915-1932 [catalog]. – Bern: Bentelli; M.: Galart, 1993.

15. Questions of the theory of architecture. Architecture and culture of Russia in the 21st century. Ed. Azizyan I. A. – M.: LIBROKOM, 2009. – 472 p.

16. Gozak A.P. Ivan Leonidov. – M.: Giraffe, 2002. – 239 p.

17. Grigorieva I. S. Giacomo Quarenghi. Architectural graphics. – St. Petersburg: State Hermitage Museum, 1999. – 149 p.

18. Daniel S. M. European classicism. – St. Petersburg: ABC-classics, 2003. – 304 p.

19. Dmitrochenkova E. N. Works of Pietro di Guttardo Gonzaga from Moscow collections, 250 years [album]. – M.: MV polygraph, 2001.

20. Dobritsyna I. A. From postmodernism to nonlinear architecture: Architecture in the context of modern philosophy and science. – M.: Progress-Tradition, 2004. – 416 p.

21. From the history of Novosibirsk paper architecture // Project Siberia [site]. – 2005. - No. 3. – URL: http://www.prosib.info/stat.php?tab=tema&id=84 (access date 04/12/2015).

22. Ikonnikov A.V. Utopian thinking and architecture. – M.: Architecture-S, 2004. – 400 p.

23. Kabakov I. 60-70s... Notes on unofficial life in Moscow. – M.: New Literary Review, 2008. – 368 p.

24. Kabanova O. Paper locks don’t burn // Russian newspaper. – 08/09/2004. – No. 3545.

25. Kosenkova K. G. Architectural utopias of German expressionism // Essays on the history of architecture of New and Contemporary times / ed. Azizyan I. A. – St. Petersburg: Kolo, 2009. – 656 p.

26. Kurg A. Towards “paper architecture”: Critical architecture of the late socialist period in Tallinn and Moscow // Project Baltia. – 2013-2014. – No. 04-01. – pp. 114-120.

27. Latour A. The Birth of the Metropolis. Moscow 1930-1955 - M.: Art of the XXI century, 2005. - 336 p.

28. Ledoux K.-N. Architecture considered in relation to art and legislation. – Ekaterinburg: Architecton: Kanon, 2003.

29. Lexicon of nonclassics: artistic and aesthetic culture of the 20th century. Ed. Bychkov V.V. – M.: Rossitsskaya political encyclopedia, 2003. – 608 p.

30. Lissman K.P. Philosophy of contemporary art6 introduction. – St. Petersburg: Hyperion, 2011. – 248 p.

31. Mamardashvili M.K. Arrow of knowledge: collection. – M.: Tydex Co., 2004. – 262 p.

32. Milk N. Alexander Brodsky - Ilya Utkin // Dynamic couples / Cultural Alliance. Project of Marat Gelman [website]. – URL: http://www.guelman.ru/dva/para3.html (date accessed 04/29/2015).

33. Novikova L. Yuri Avvakumov. End of story? // Interior explorer [site]. – URL: http://www.interiorexplorer.ru/article.php?article=569 (date accessed 05/01/2015).

34. The turning point of the eighties in the unofficial art of the USSR. Ed. Kiesewalter G. – M.: New Literary Review, 2014. – 688 p.

35. Rappaport A. G. John Outram - building an English “wallet” // Architecture. – 06/23/1990.

36. Rappaport A. G. Once again about paper architecture // Tower and labyrinth [blog]. – 05/23/2013. – URL: http://papardes.blogspot.ru/2013/05/blog-post.html (access date: 03/20/2015).

37. Rappaport A.G. Cranes of architectural autumn [manuscript]. – 1991.

38. Rappaport A. G. Concepts of architectural space. – M.: CSTI for Civil Engineering and Architecture, 1988.

39. Rappaport A. G. Towards an understanding of architectural form / Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Art History, presented in the form of a scientific report [portal archi.ru]. – M., 2000. URL: http://archi.ru/lib/publication.html?id=1850569398&fl=5&sl=1 (access date 03/12/2015).

40. Rappaport A. G. A short course in “paper architecture” // Ogonyok. – 1990. – No. 24.

41. Rappaport A. G. Twilight of the future // Architecture. – 06/09/1990. – No. 11.

42. Rappaport A. G. Fantasies instead of utopia // Construction newspaper. Architecture. – 1988. – No. 22(686).

43. Revzin G. Foreign body. 19: Mikhail Belov // Classic project. – 2006. – 275 p.

44. Revzin G. Architectural fantasy // Classic project. – 03/27/2005. – URL: http://projectclassica.ru/culture/13_2005/2005_13_01a.htm (access date 04/14/2015).

45. Revzin G.I. Mikhail Filippov: architect-artist. – M.: OGI, 2011. – 435 p.

46. ​​Revzin G. Portrait of the artist in his youth // Kommersant Weekend. – 2015. – No. 6. – P. 18.

47. Revzin G.I. Russian architecture at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. – M.: New publishing house, 2013. – 532 p.

48. Revzin G.I. Essays on the philosophy of architectural form. – M.: OGI, 2002. – 144 p.

49. Russian utopia: a depository = Russian utopia: a depository / Venice Biennale VI International Exhibition of Architecture [catalog]. – M.: b.i., . – 20 s.

50. Rykov A.V. Postmodernism as “radical conservatism”: The problem of artistic-theoretical conservatism and the American theory of contemporary art of the 1960-1990s. – St. Petersburg: Aletheia, 2007. – 376 p.

51. Ryabushin A.V. Architects of the turn of the millennium. – M.: Art XXI century, 2005. – 288 p.

52. Sikachev A.V. When you run in the wrong direction // Bulletin of the Moscow Architectural Institute [website]. – URL: http://www.marhi.ru/vestnik/theory/run.php (access date 04/14/2015).

53. Smolyanitsky M. “Paper architecture” as it does not exist // Capital. – 1992. – No. 17.

54. Modern architecture of the world: Vol. 1/Ans. Ed. Konovalova N. A. – M.; St. Petersburg : Nestor-History, 2011. – 388 p.

55. Strigale A. A. Dialogue of history and art. – St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 1999. – 220 p.

56. Tarkhanov A. Paper architecture as of 1986 // Year of Architecture: Collection (for the VIII Congress of the Union of Architects of the USSR). – M., 1987. – P. 77.

57. Utkin I. It was the replacement of emptiness // Classic Project [website] – 11.27.2003. – URL: http://www.architektor.ru/avtor/utkin/teoriya/pressa/Ulya%20Utkin%20Eto%20bylo%20zameshenie%20pustoty.htm (access date 03/23/2015).

58. Kharitonova A., Barabanov E., Rosenfeld A. “Allowed for export from the USSR.” Moscow nonconformism. – M.: Cultural Foundation “Ekaterina”, 2011. – 276 p.

59. Yuzbashev V. From paper to virtual. Opportunities and losses in architecture // New World. – 2001. – No. 1.

60. Yakimovich A.K. Flights over the abyss: art, culture, picture of the world. 1930 -1990. – M.: Art – XXI century, 2009. – 464 p.

61. Grois B. The total art of Stalinism: avant-garde, aesthetic dictatorship, and beyond. – Oxford: Princeptom University Press, 1992. – 126 p.

62. Hatton B., Cooke C., Rappaport A. G. Nostalgia of culture – Contemporary Soviet visionary architecture. – London: Architectural Association Publications, 1989. – 80 p.

63. Nesbitt L. E. Brodsky & Utkin: The Complete Works. – NY.: Princeton Architectural Press, 2003. – 128 p.

64. Olman L. 2 Soviet Architects Build on Imagination // Los Angeles Times. – November 11, 1989. – P. F1, F10.

65. Paper architecture: The columbaria of Brodsky and Utkin // Postmodernism. Style and Subversion 1970-90. – London, V&A Museum, 2011.

66. Paper architecture. An Exhibition of Deutsche Lufthansa AG., German Airlines. – Frankfurt am Main: Deutsches Architektur Museum, 1989.

67. Rappaport A. G. Paper architecture. A postscript / Post-Soviet art and architecture. – London: Academy Editions, 1994. – P.128-143.

68. Rappaport A. G. Sprache und Architektur des “Post-Totalitarismus” / Klotz H. Papierarchitektur: neue Projekte aus der Sowjetunion. – Frankfurt am Main, 1989. – 148 p.

69. Rappaport A. G. Traveling dreamers or the Past in the Future / Brodsky&Utkin. – New Zealand, 1989.

70. Utopias. Ed. Noble R. / Whitechapel: Documents of Contemporary Art. – London: Whitechapel Gallery, The MIT Press, 2009. – 240 p.

Information market or sanctuary of 11 oracles.

Apartment for an islander's family.

“Atrium, or space where everyone can be big and small”

Museum of Equestrian Sculpture without Riders. 1983

“Tombstone skyscraper, or urban self-erecting columbarium”, (together with Yuri Avvakumov) 1983

Theater of the Lonely Red Lady.

Architect: Mikhail Filippov

Resistance shaft. 1985

Tower of Babel. 1989

Atrium. First prize at the international competition 1985

Information market. Honorable Mention at the International Competition 1986

Monument 2001. Honorable Mention at the International Competition 1987

Architects: Alexander Brodsky and Ilya Utkin

Ilya Utkin and Alexander Brodsky

House for a doll

Home for Winnie the Pooh.

Museum of Vanished Houses (Columbarium) - first page.

Museum of Vanished Houses (Columbarium) - second page.

Hole mountain.

Villa Nautilus

Bridge over the abyss

City turtle

Crystal Palace of the twentieth century.

Museum of Urban Sculpture. Island of stability.

Bridge city.

Dome. 1990

A theater without a stage, or a wandering auditorium. 1986

Nameless river.

Ship of fools.

Opera Bastille.

Museum of Architecture.

Temple city.

The villa is claustrophobic.

Glass monument.

Untitled.

Forum of a Thousand Truths 1987

Monument 2000

Filippov Mikhail Anatolievich. R Born in 1954 in Leningrad.

Education:

In 1979 he graduated from the Leningrad State Academic Institute of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. I. E. Repin.
In 1983 he joined the Union of Architects of Russia, in 1984 - the Union of Artists of Russia.

Urban development projects:

1. . 2009.
2. (Moscow region).

Individual objects:

1. Reconstruction of GUTA Bank (Moscow). Diploma of the festival “Zodchestvo-97” - 1996-1997;
2. Executive mansion (Moscow, B. Afanasyevsky lane) 1998;
   
3. State Musical Jewish Theater (Moscow, Taganskaya Square) - 1997. Diploma of the Quadriennale in Prague (1999), II degree diploma of the Zodchestvo-97 festival, I degree diploma of the Zodchestvo-98 festival, Golden Section prize of MOCA (1997 ), diploma from the Union of Designers (1998). Nominated for the State Prize;
4. Representative complex (Gorki Leninskie village, Moscow region) - 1998. Diploma of the festival “Architecture-98”;
5. Project for the reconstruction of the marine terminal and harbor area of ​​the city of Sochi 2000 - 1999;

Competitions:

• "Sculpture Museum", Central Glass, Tokyo. Second prize - 1983;
• "Style 2001", JA, Tokyo. First prize - 1984;
• “Atrium”, Central Glass (for the solution of the atrium space), Tokyo. First prize - 1985;
• "Shaft of Resistance", JA, Tokyo. Honorable Mention - 1985;
• “The Information Market”, Central Glass, Tokyo. Honorable Mention - 1986;
• "Monument 2001", JA, Tokyo. Honorable Mention - 1987;
• “Island”, Moscomarchitecture (commissioned by the Academy of Architecture of the Russian Federation). Diploma - 1998.

Main exhibitions:

• Milan Triennale - 1988;
  State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg (personal) - 1992;
• Milan Triennale - 1996;
• State Museum of Architecture named after. A. V. Shchuseva, Moscow (personal) -1998;
• VII Venice International Architectural Biennale (solo exhibition “Ruins of Paradise” in the Russian pavilion). 2000;
• "Marmomak-2000", Verona (personal). 2000;
• State Museum of Architecture named after. A. V. Shchuseva, Moscow. 2000;
• "10 Years - 10 Architects", Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), London. "10 best architects of Russia." 2002;

Creative credo:

"Canonical order architecture — architecture of post-consumer society"