English topic on the topic - Architecture for all grades of the school. About architectural heritage, traditions and innovation

(from the French moderne - modern, French art nouveau - translated means new art) - an artistic movement in art, most widespread in the last decade of the 19th - early 20th centuries (before the start of the First World War). Modern architecture is distinguished by its rejection of straight lines and angles in favor of more natural, “natural” lines, and the use of new technologies (metal, glass).

This was the first direction in the history of architecture that moved away from the order system and from the continuation of the traditions of classical architecture. The facades of buildings in the Art Nouveau style are asymmetrical - without straight lines and angles, they resemble forms borrowed from nature. The buildings are beautiful and do not have bad angles; on each side the façade and decor look special, while all elements obey the architect’s single plan. Another feature of the art of this style was the use of a variety of building and finishing materials; glass, steel, concrete are used along with more traditional wood, brick, and stone. The buildings were distinguished by huge display windows and stained glass windows - colorful paintings made of colored glass. Sculptures of fairy-tale creatures were located above the entrances and windows, organically combining with the overall architectural image.

Art Nouveau masters used new technical and constructive means, free planning to create unusual, distinctly individual buildings, all elements of which were subordinated to a single figurative and symbolic plan; The facades of Art Nouveau buildings are dynamic and have a fluidity of form, sometimes approaching sculpture.

Natural style

The natural architecture of a country house is represented by the chalet style, Scandinavian and organic styles. This also includes ethnic architecture (architecture inherent to a certain people, country, based on traditions and customs).

Born in Savoy, an ancient province in southeastern France, bordering Italy and Switzerland. Initially, chalets (French:shalet) are houses located on mountain slopes. They were used seasonally as farms for dairy cattle, which were grazed on the lowland pastures by shepherds (hence the shepherd's chalet). These houses served as shelter in bad weather and as a home for shepherds during the summer months of grazing livestock. With the onset of cold weather, they were closed and not used during the Alpine winter.

The chalets were built of stone (foundation and high ground floor) and strong timber (ground floor and attic), the walls were plastered and whitewashed with lime. The stone floor protected the house from any weather and allowed it to stand firmly on any difficult mountainous terrain. The usable building area was increased by terraces extending far beyond the perimeter of the house, as if hanging over the valley. Sloping roofs, with a slope strongly protruding beyond the walls, created additional protection from precipitation. The climatic conditions in the Alpine mountains are quite harsh, so the buildings were erected without any special frills, but very well. Wind, snow and rain only improved appearance chalet: the stone acquired a picturesque chipped appearance, and the resinous coniferous wood (pine, larch), traditionally used to build houses, became a noble dark color over time. The facades facing the weather were additionally sheathed with wood chips or shingles, and looked gloomy due to the monotony of the natural dark color of the wood and the lack of additional decorations. The most beautiful side of the house was the eastern facade. The roof gable with the ridge was always oriented towards the sunrise. The walls facing the sunny side were plastered, painted with white lime, decorated with bright paintings, decorated with ledges, balconies, and carvings. The decor was simple and devoid of any pretentiousness.

Distinctive feature A house built in the style of an Alpine chalet is characterized by the special strength and reliability of the structure, the laconicism of its forms, dictated by the harsh climate, and the ergonomics of the internal space. Among the features of architectural solutions: a sloping roof dominating the entire volume of the building; the top floor is always attic; and a wide, made of wood, balcony extending along the entire façade and resting on the structure of the first floor.

The concept consists of late XIX century from the diversity of Scandinavian cultures, languages, traditions and views. The philosophy of this style played an important role in world architecture.

Scandinavia is a harsh northern region with beautiful cold nature, clear lakes, huge forests, a rugged coastline with many fjords. Scandinavians are leisurely and thorough. They are characterized by restraint and some severity, coldness and silence, as well as love and respect for nature. The character of a Scandinavian home was formed under the influence of two powerful elements. One of them is natural. Long cold winters, the proximity of the sea and piercing winds forced northerners to focus on protecting their homes from external influences. The other is religious. Protestantism and an extremely negative attitude towards demonstrative luxury. That's why Scandinavian houses look modest.

The traditional house in the Nordic countries was built from wood. The bare frame, covered with boards, wood siding or clapboard, is painted in a contrasting, discreet color with white window sashes. Scandinavian builders try to preserve the natural texture of wood, which is only emphasized by a colorless coating or tinting. But individual parts are allowed to be brightly colored, for example, ridges and roof supports or gables. The house itself is distinguished by simple shapes, minimal decor and the highest quality workmanship of all construction details. This simplicity is particularly attractive. The Scandinavian style clearly shows the Nordic peoples’ craving for nature and love for its creations.

This is a direction in architecture that appeared thanks to the American architect Louis Sullivan, who first formulated it on the basis of the principles of evolutionary biology in the 1890s, as “correspondence between form and function.” Louis Sullivan and his student and colleague Frank Lloyd Wright (in whose works this trend of architectural thought found its most complete embodiment) at the beginning of the 20th century created American architecture, which before them was a mixture of historical European forms.

“Every building intended for human use must be an integral part of the landscape, a feature of it, related to the locality and integral to it. We hope it stays where it is for a long time. After all, a house is not a van!”

F.L. Wright

Sullivan's ideas formed the basis of Wright's concept. The building must be integrated into nature. The appearance should follow from the content. Flexible building layout, internal spaces flowing into each other, connected to the outside world by strip glazing. Application of natural materials in architecture.

Organic architecture sees its task in creating buildings and structures that reveal the properties of natural materials and are organically integrated into the surrounding landscape. A supporter of the idea of ​​continuity of architectural space, Wright proposed to draw a line under the tradition of deliberately highlighting a building and its components from the surrounding world. In his opinion, the shape of a building should each time follow from its specific purpose and the unique environmental conditions in which it is erected. Houses built in an organic style served as a natural continuation of the surrounding natural environment, similar to the evolutionary form of natural organisms.

Modern styles

New technologies and materials, new trends and trends modern thought, functionality, brevity of forms, rational thinking and the desire for naturalness - all this shapes new look on architecture, creating the so-called modern style. Simple forms, open structures that become architectural decoration; connection between the interior and the outside world, environmentally friendly materials, free space, plenty of air and light - these are important components of modern style.

The formation of modern architecture was strongly influenced by a number of trends in architectural thought, united by the term Modernism (from the French modernism, moderne - newest, modern) - this is a movement in the architecture of the 20th century, a turning point in content, associated with a decisive renewal of forms and designs, a rejection of styles of the past, it is based on the achievements scientific and technological revolution and covers almost the entire 20th century - from the beginning of the century to the 70-80s.

Architectural modernism includes such architectural trends as functionalism, constructivism, rationalism, architectural art deco style, brutalism, organic architecture (discussed in the section “Natural style”). All these directions have their own characteristics, their own philosophy and stages of development, however, in private suburban construction they are poorly used in their pure form, so we will dwell in more detail only on constructivism and art deco.

Direction in architecture of the 1920s. XX century, which developed after the First World War due to the growth of industrial technology and the introduction of new types of buildings and structures.

This architectural style reveals the design of architectural structures, requires functionality and rationality of forms, geometric clarity of volumes. Constructivism is characterized by the exposure of the building structure, extreme simplification of the form, the contrast of blank wall surfaces with large glazing surfaces, and the monolithic appearance of the building.

Art Deco, Also art deco(French art deco, lit. "decorative art", from the name of the Parisian exhibition of 1925) - an influential movement in the first half of the 20th century, which first appeared in France in the 1920s and developed until the end of World War II. This is an eclectic style, a synthesis of modernism and neoclassicism. The Art Deco style also has significant influence from artistic movements such as Cubism, Constructivism and Futurism.

Distinctive features are strict patterns, bold geometric shapes, ethnic geometric patterns, richness of colors, generous ornaments, luxury, chic, expensive, modern materials.

Art Deco structure is based on the mathematical geometry of shapes. It is generally accepted that Art Deco is one of many forms of Art Nouveau with eclectic influences in addition to powerful modern designs high technology.

The influence of Art Deco design was expressed in the crystalline and faceted forms of decorative cubism and futurism. Other popular Art Deco themes were trapezoidal, zigzag, geometric and mixed shapes, which can be seen in many of the early works of architects and designers.

Now let's move directly to the main directions of modern architecture, such as High-tech, Minimalism and Bio-tech.

Hi-tech(English hi-tech, from high technology - high technology) - a style in architecture and design that appeared in England in the 60s of the 20th century.

Main features of the style:
The use of high technologies in the design, construction and engineering of buildings and structures. High-tech is characterized by straight lines and shapes, appeal to elements of constructivism and cubism, and the most practical planning of interior space; widespread use of silver-metallic color, glass, plastic, metal; lighting that creates the effect of a spacious room. The use of functional elements: elevators, stairs, ventilation systems placed on the façade of the building. The high-tech style does not hide structural details, but rather plays with them, making them decorative elements. Buildings in this style are very functional, comfortable, they have their own beauty, complex simplicity and sculptural form.

Bio-tech(Bionics) is the newest direction in architecture (late 20th - early 21st centuries, still at the stage of formation), where, in contrast to High-tech, the expressiveness of structures is achieved not by turning to elements of constructivism and cubism, but by borrowing natural forms The bio-tech style developed from bionics (from the Greek bios - life), an applied science whose proponents seek inspiration in nature to solve complex technical problems. The concept of bionics appeared at the beginning of the twentieth century. This is the area scientific knowledge, based on the discovery and use of patterns in the construction of natural forms to solve technical, technological and artistic problems based on the analysis of the structure, morphology and vital activity of biological organisms.

The name was proposed by the American researcher J. Steele at a 1960 symposium in Daytona - “Living prototypes of artificial systems - the key to new technology” - during which the emergence of a new, unexplored field of knowledge was consolidated. From this moment on, architects, designers, constructors and engineers are faced with a number of tasks aimed at finding new means of shaping.

Buildings in the Bio-tech style repeat natural forms and structures, striving for organicity with nature. Bio-tech embodies a philosophical concept, the meaning of which is to create a new space for human life as a creation of nature, combining the principles of biology, engineering and architecture. Unlike organic architecture, which does not strive to copy nature, its manifestations, but wants to be in an organic relationship with it, bionics strives to copy nature not only externally, but also constructively.

[...] The appearance of residential buildings often represents grandiose palace-dwellings, rich in colonnades, with powerful rustications and colossal cornices. At the same time, the architect ignores specific requirements modern man. This is one of the serious shortcomings of our architectural practice.

The very fact of serious study classical heritage in the field of architecture marks a big shift towards overcoming the influences of constructivism. But, instead of studying the working methods of the masters of the past, we often transfer into our housing construction the image of the building borrowed from the past.

We have still studied the architecture of the 19th century very poorly, although a serious analysis of it can provide a lot for determining modern moments in housing construction. [...]

[...] Studying the working method of the great masters of the past reveals their basic essence - the ability to express the image of a structure based on the constructive capabilities of their time and taking into account the needs of their contemporaries. Knowledge of the method of such a master is much more important than the formal study of the order with its details or the fanatical transfer of individual formal techniques. [...]

* From the article “Architecture of a Residential Building” in the newspaper “Soviet Art”, 1937, June 11.

True art is progressive. And this primarily applies to architecture, the most complex of arts.

Wouldn't it seem unnatural if a modern steam locomotive entered a station built in the classical forms of Greek temples?

What will he feel? soviet man, disembarked from a plane in front of the airport building, whose appearance will remind you of the distant past?

On the other hand, can we discount all the architectural achievements of past centuries and start all over again?

These are the questions around which there have been heated discussions for a number of years, leaving tangible traces.

It is often forgotten that an architectural structure can only be created for a certain society, that it is designed to meet the worldview and feelings of this society. We must study the working methods of the great masters of the past and creatively perceive their principles. All this is far from a mechanical transfer of old architectural elements into our era. [...]

* From the article “Notes of an Architect” in the newspaper “Leningradskaya Pravda”, 1940, August 25.

[...] In Leningrad there is a great desire for a stable image, for stable details and a distrust of creative inventions. Oddly enough, the presence of a wonderful architectural past in Leningrad creates a great danger of detachment from the tasks we have set for today. [...]

* From a speech at a creative meeting of architects of Moscow and Leningrad on April 22-24, 1940. Published in the magazine “Architecture of the USSR”, 1940, No. 5.

[...] Works of architecture, designed to stand for centuries, must be above fashion, they must contain those universal human principles that never die out, like the tragedies of Shakespeare.

But often, I think, what is considered innovation is what can least of all be attributed to it. Innovation is, first of all, not an invention. [...] Art is possible only in tradition, and outside tradition there is no art. True innovation is, first of all, the development of progressive principles laid down in the past, but only those principles that are characteristic of modern humanity.

Innovation has the right to have its own tradition. Understanding innovation as an abstract principle outside of time and space is absurd in its essence. Innovation is the development of ideas embedded in historical continuity. If we talk about Corbusier as an innovator, then the ideas put forward and practically implemented by him, their roots lie in the generalization of a number of examples that were used in the light of new opportunities. Variable construction, which received a wide response from the light hand of Mies Van der Rohe mainly in Europe and America and has come down to us, has a thousand-year history in Chinese and Japanese houses.

Innovation is designed to expand the range of ideas. And we have nothing to fear from the appearance of proposals that fall somewhat outside the canonical perception and which, perhaps, are somewhat ahead of possibilities, for in architecture they, as a rule, arise as a result of the gap between the development of technology and the presence of slowly changing architectural forms. One thing is important - that the concept of innovation comes from life’s premises and is not abstract.

We often intertwine two terms that are polar in their understanding. This is innovative and banal. It seems to me that sometimes there can be more innovation in a “banal” basis than in the most poignant proposal. It is not for nothing that Matisse, who cannot be blamed for the lack of innovative proposals, urged first of all not to be afraid of the banal. More. It seems to me that what we call banal, in the hands of a true artist, approaches modernity. Genuine knowledge, creativity in a high understanding of this meaning, its depth - can be in the development of the banal. Is Thomas de Thomon's Exchange surprising in its uniqueness? But its greatness lies in the deepest understanding of its location, in the interpretation of the whole and individual elements, in the knowledge of artistic expediency.

We talk a lot about tradition. It seems to me that Voltaire’s phrase about the need to agree on terms and then enter into disputes is quite appropriate here. Tradition is far from an abstract concept. But the understanding of tradition may be different. There was a time when they thought that the checkered trousers of the hero of Ostrovsky's play Shmagi were theatrical tradition. Tradition carries within itself, first of all, the character of historical continuity, a known pattern.

But it is possible for a tradition to emerge within the memory of contemporaries. Examples can be found in the young art of cinema, born today. Chaliapin, who created the image of Boris Godunov (despite his external historical appearance), laid the foundation for a performing tradition. But the important thing is that this beginning was not confined to the formal external image of Tsar Boris. Chaliapin revealed the stage image with the power of his capabilities, determined the artistic totality of the image in appearance, in its internal content. His external appearance, preserved in the present on stage, is in no way a tradition.

In architecture, tradition has little in common with rejuvenated archaeology, just as in understanding it as stylistic continuity. The architectural traditions of Leningrad are not built on stylistic continuity. On Palace Square, the buildings of Rastrelli, Zakharov, Rossi, Bryullov coexist organically not because of stylistic commonality (in the understanding of style as an architectural concept).

The architectural tradition of Leningrad is in the continuous understanding of the spirit of the city, its character, landscape, appropriateness of the task, in the nobility of forms, in the scale, modularity of nearby buildings. [...]

* From the article “On Traditions and Innovation,” published in June 1945 in the newspaper “For Socialist Realism” (organ of the party bureau, directorate, trade union committee, local committee and Komsomol committee of the I. E. Repin Institute).

[...] The point of view that when new materials appear, then one can move on to an architecture based on their capabilities, one must assume, is more than short-sighted, because without ideological preparation, without a gradual revision of a number of provisions about heaviness, weight, concepts of monumentality and etc. we will, of course, find ourselves captive to wonderful dreams. [...]

[...] Architecture rests on laws inseparable from traditions, to which current life makes its own amendments and adjustments. A person will always have a sense of measurement based on his physical properties, there will remain a sense of perception of his time, as well as sensations of heaviness, lightness, a sense of correlation, appropriateness, expediency. But architecture is not always obliged to preserve the usual imagery, especially when this comes into conflict with all the latest technical capabilities and everyday needs, which raise modern man one more level higher.

Architecture will always express properties modern society. And the task of a Soviet architect is to be able to fully express these aspirations and aspirations in materials.

* From the article “On the issue of architectural education” in the magazine “Architecture and Construction of Leningrad”, 1947, October.

[...] You need to be able to show everything negative aspects architecture of modernism, which formally operated with the progressive data of science and technology that was contemporary to it, be able to separate one from the other, and not silently bypass these difficult questions recent past of architecture.

In particular, you should pay attention to one significant detail: the loss of the sense of plasticity, the sense of chiaroscuro at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. In this regard, two examples are not without interest: one house built according to the design of academician V. A. Shchuko in 1910 on Kirovsky Prospekt in Leningrad, which was a kind of reaction to the properties of planar modernism. Here is a genuine large order with strong chiaroscuro. The house of Academician I.V. Zholtovsky, built in 1935 in Moscow on Mokhovaya Street, which was also a kind of reaction to planar constructivism, had the same properties. I. V. Zholtovsky also used a large order here, taken in the exact relationship of Lodjia dell Kapitanio by Andrea Palladio with its strong chiaroscuro.

[...] In order to remind you how we understand architectural traditions and the laws and norms embedded in them, I will give attempts to define the progressive traditions of St. Petersburg architecture.

We say these include:

1. Accounting and skillful use natural conditions the city, its flat topography, water spaces and unique flavor.

2. The solution of the architecture of the city as a whole as a complex of integral, large architectural ensembles, based on the spatial organic connection of both individual ensembles with each other, and the elements that make up each given ensemble.

3. The organization of the unity and integrity of each ensemble is not the unity of stylistic characteristics individual buildings and parts of the ensemble, but by the unity of scale and module of the main divisions.

4. Achieving great diversity and picturesqueness of the different style characteristics of the buildings that make up the ensemble and at the same time maintaining complete individuality creative person every master architect and a reflection of the “spirit of the times”.

5. Creation of a characteristic silhouette of the city, calm and monotonous, corresponding to the flat topography of the area and at the same time restrained, emphasized and moderately enlivened by individual verticals - towers, spiers, domes.

6. Subordination of a particular architectural task to general urban planning tasks and subordination of each new architectural structure with neighboring existing ones.

7. A subtle understanding of the scale of a city, square, building in relation to them; understanding the internal architectonic logic of each architectural structure; extremely clear, precise composition of the building; saving expressive means with the resulting restraint and simplicity of decor; thin, deep feeling architectural detail and its scale. [...]

[...] The last 50-60 years, which are closest to us, have not been studied, and this is extremely strange. [...]

The point that we haven’t talked about so far is the most interesting - about deepening the system.

If earlier the classics of the late 17th and early 19th centuries could deepen systems, expand them, then in our country not a single system deepens, but is done hastily, quickly passes, 10-15 years, and moves on to the next, and the system itself becomes somewhat abstract . You see all the creative efforts of the last 60 years. We updated the non-deepened, hence the throwing. [...]

* From a speech at a theoretical conference of the Faculty of Architecture of the Institute of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture named after. I. E. Repin of the USSR Academy of Arts December 23, 1950 Verbatim report, library of the Institute. I. E. Repin.

[...] It seems that by tradition it is correct to understand those progressive principles that played a positive role in the past and deserve development in the present. We proceeded from this when deciding on the station building*. Innovation should be an organically integral concept from tradition. [...]

* Station in Pushkin, awarded the State Prize (authors: I. A. Levinson, A. A. Grushke. 1944-1950).

[...] What is new in architecture is primarily associated with the knowledge of reality in its progressive development. This pattern of scientific development is directly related to architecture.

The struggle for something new will always exist. But this “new” must be determined based on life, and not on abstract doctrines, which, for example, are so widely used in Western architecture. The search for something new there very often comes from the formal research of the architect or is taken outside the life of the people, their customs and traditions. [...]

* From the article “The Practice of an Architect” in the collection. " Creative problems Soviet architecture" (L.-M., 1956).

[...] Architecture and related arts are not born as an art of one day. This is a complex, difficult process associated with the time factor. And hence, the understanding of modernity is not based only on formal modern “techniques” and examples generated by new opportunities of the industry, a new understanding of the surrounding world, which, however, play a major role. The solution in the art of architecture, which contains synthetic principles, is the control of time, the argument that determines and selects the authentic from the surrogates. [...]

[...] Historical examples closer to us can illustrate a lot. Thus, basically the progressive movement in architecture, Art Nouveau, despite all the manifestos of its adherents, due to the lack of traditions and the inability to find the necessary organic forms, grew into that decadence, which was all built on decorative principles and whose taste is still present today a striking example of the destruction of architectural forms. [...]

* From the report “On Synthesis” 1958-1962. (archive of E. E. Levinson).

[...] If we look at the past, we can see that from time to time the views of architects turned to classical accumulations in one concept or another. True, some sought in their progressive development to get rid of this influence, feeling its strength. As an example, we can point out that one of the founders of Art Nouveau, its ideological leader, Viennese architect Otto Wagner, who had a valuable library on classical architecture, sold it so that it would not influence his work. But at the same time, it is characteristic that his buildings often sinned precisely in terms of taste.

Naturally, the thought arises that with lack of composure in the field of architectural theory, with a shortage of building materials after the end of the Patriotic War, in the absence of a construction industry, architects turned, like the experiments of Shchuko in 1910 and Zholtovsky in 1935, to forms that so habitually fit into familiar brick formations.

This was perhaps facilitated by the tendency in the first post-war years to carry out construction in cities, where engineering communications were available and the structure could fit well enough into the surrounding landscape, fit into the ensemble, the problems of which we always devote a lot of space to.

There was another side - representativeness, the spirit of which was then in many branches of art. It is possible that post-war patriotic feelings, those feelings of self-esteem that involuntarily turned to the great shadows of the past - Stasov, Starov and others - played a certain role here.

Later what happened is what happens to any direction that, not having sufficient historical support, outlives itself and turns into its opposite, not having a solid foundation in the process of creating those architectural forms that corresponded to the growth of industry, which opens up new opportunities. The architectural direction of the first post-war years, which sought to liken its creations to the classical examples of the past, turned to its opposite, in this case - towards decoration. [...]

[...] What was disorienting in the competition for the design of the Palace of the Soviets was that three projects were awarded the highest prize: Iofan’s project, Zholtovsky’s project, made in a classical concept, and the project of the young American architect Hamilton, made in an Americanized spirit *. The fact that prizes were given to projects that were fundamentally different in their stylistic and other qualities essentially opened up the way to encourage eclecticism, because if the Palace of Soviets can be designed in different plans and styles, then this conclusion is quite natural. [...]

** From the article “Some Issues in the Development of Soviet Architecture” in the scientific notes of the Institute. I. E. Repin (issue 1, Leningrad, 1961).

Modern St. Petersburg, according to leading architects, is losing its individuality, which distinguished it favorably from other European capitals. The professional community is resuming its search for criteria for the St. Petersburg style in architecture.

Mamoshin: St. Petersburg has always been a city of stylistic diversity

The socio-economic and political transformations of the 1990s led to the need to rethink the cultural specifics of St. Petersburg. At the same time, academician Dmitry Likhachev noted: “It is important for us to understand our role, our character, our individuality as a city in order to develop and support at least the most important and significant in cultural activities our predecessors, St. Petersburg residents."

A quarter of a century later, the topic of St. Petersburg style is again discussed at forums and conferences. It was not ignored at the IX International Forum on Urban Planning and Architecture A.city. “As a result of the discussion, I would like to develop criteria for this concept that would bear the features of continuity with our great heritage,” said head of the KGA Vladimir Grigoriev. In his opinion, the St. Petersburg style is not a repetition historical buildings, but the use in modern buildings of architectural techniques that distinguish the Northern capital from other cities in the world.

The symbiosis of traditions and innovations is important, and style is only a tool, he noted General Director of Mamoshin Architectural Workshop LLC Mikhail Mamoshin. “St. Petersburg has always been a city of stylistic diversity. This is a reflection of its historically established multinationality and multiculturalism,” noted Head of the architectural bureau "Evgeny Gerasimov and Partners" Evgeny Gerasimov. “For me, the St. Petersburg style is quality, any architecture, but only high-quality.”

Identification marks

The architecture of St. Petersburg is a reflection not only of stylistic diversity, but also of the urban planning and cultural phenomenon of the city. This is confirmed by the recognition of the historical center of the city as a whole, and not its individual buildings, as a World Heritage Site. This is an unprecedented case in the history of UNESCO. Listing the urban planning features of classical St. Petersburg, Mikhail Mamoshin identified the following iconic urban planning features: ensemble development, the presence of sky and red lines, a firewall rule indicating the boundaries of intra-block surveying, height regulations for buildings (historical restrictions and modern high-rise zoning in the historical center).

Also, the architecture of the imperial capital is characterized by specific architectural features. In particular, the vertical solution of window openings, the axial construction of facades, an odd number of windows form the axis, the length of the facade (along the building line 25–50 m, historically originating from the combination of land plots), the mandatory presence of a plinth (traditionally Putilov slab), diagonal axial construction of compositions corner buildings and their elements (in the area of ​​street intersections).

“Thank God the city took the initiative to lower the building heights. It is important to maintain continuity in legislation,” Mikhail Mamoshin emphasized. – French architects live by laws that were formulated under Napoleon. There is continuity of thinking there – this is what we lack today.”

By the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th century, the urban planning traditions embodied in the St. Petersburg ensembles were so strong that the revolutionary fervor of the architects of the young Soviet Republic was realized in an acceptable format.

“Architecture has always disappeared towards the top, this is very important quality managed to be preserved even during the period of fashion for constructivism - in Leningrad they did not get carried away with Suprematist buildings, which are characterized by an increase in form towards the top,” noted the architect.

In addition, such St. Petersburg motifs as its theatricality and color are also important. The metaphors themselves are eloquent: “St. Petersburg is a stucco, colorful city.”

Public open spaces such as embankments are also a distinctive feature. “If we take London, open spaces there are usually private. We must develop this brand of ours,” says the architect.

Meanwhile, the city is gradually losing these iconic urban planning and architectural features, stated Mikhail Mamoshin.

Tactful coexistence

St. Petersburg has always been built on fairly clear principles, says Vladimir Grigoriev. Many buildings here were erected not by architects, but by civil engineers (Domenico Trezzini, the author of the first general plan of St. Petersburg, a military engineer; Nikolai Baranov, the chief architect of the city in 1938–1950, graduated from the Leningrad Institute of Civil Engineers. - Ed.). Drawing skills were more common among engineers than they are now among architects, he noted.

The symbiosis of tradition and innovation is important, and style is only a tool
(Click on photo to enlarge)

Another distinctive principle of St. Petersburg development is tact: when building a new house, they tried not to outshine its neighbor. “Architects are ambitious in their work, but either our sky acts this way, or there was always a feeling that St. Petersburg is the capital, but in the end, architecture was created that we are now proud of,” said Vladimir Grigoriev.

St. Petersburg is architecturally multifaceted, and if its historical center was formed by the beginning of the twentieth century, the city continued to develop beyond its borders. In 1917–1936, during the heyday of Soviet constructivism, Leningrad architects were among the foremost.

During the times of Stalinist classicism, 1936–1956, Stachek and Moskovsky avenues and Ivanovskaya street were built up. And the Kirov Stadium, now lost, was created in the same style. At the same time, construction of the metro was underway. The city was recovering after the war, and this period was more successful than in other European cities, says Vladimir Grigoriev. The problem of mass greening of city districts was solved in an interesting way: public gardens were laid out in place of destroyed houses, green zones were created, in particular, on Kamennoostrovsky Prospekt.

“This is an amazing, brilliant period in our architecture, when, under the leadership of Nikolai Baranov, Leningrad strengthened its architectural brand,” says Mikhail Mamoshin.

A careful attitude to all periods of urban development is a distinctive feature of St. Petersburg, says the city’s chief architect.

Under the sign of the housing program

As Vladimir Grigoriev notes, in 1956–1990 the state focused its efforts on solving the housing issue - the Soviet construction industry worked exclusively on square meters. Architecture was declared superfluous. But every cloud has a silver lining - it has enriched urban planning practice. Integrated residential development of microdistrict type has become widespread, where houses have acquired the properties of architectural elements.

Despite the fact that entire areas were built up with modest standard buildings, they became the compositional details of the ensembles of new microdistricts. Large-scale projects were characterized by impeccable regularity of planning; streets and avenues were straight.

Leningrad architects created their own urban planning school, a feature of which was the idea of ​​preserving historical buildings - new residential areas were actively growing along the periphery of the city.

In the Soviet post-war period, many worthy buildings and structures were created; they need to be taken under protection, says the city’s chief architect. The Union of Architects of St. Petersburg is working on this issue.

“The quality of standard development is very different, but all of this, like the historical center, makes up St. Petersburg, whose microdistricts cannot be confused with neighborhoods in other cities,” says Vladimir Grigoriev.

Encode?

According to Mikhail Mamoshin, we live in an era of post-functionalism, post-rationalism. Since 1991, the architect has freed himself from the dictates of builders and strict restrictions from the authorities. “It would seem that the time of historical justice has come for architects - a golden age. But we all feel the same dissatisfaction with what is happening. The simple facades of Khrushchev-era buildings are sometimes more humane than the bacchanalia of modern residential architecture, admits Vladimir Grigoriev. – Contemporaries always criticize architecture, and there is a certain objectivity in this. However, we probably shouldn’t expect that we will get used to it, that this new architecture will grow into St. Petersburg.”

Smolny is concerned about the quality of development on the border of the city and the region. “New buildings in St. Petersburg should have their own distinctive style. This task was set before the committee on urban planning and architecture Governor Georgy Poltavchenko. KGA plans to hold a competition to find a St. Petersburg style for new residential areas,” said Vladimir Grigoriev.

A distinctive feature of St. Petersburg is its public open spaces, such as embankments
(Click on photo to enlarge)

There are discussions not only about the St. Petersburg style, but also about how to return to the St. Petersburg urban planning culture. Germany solved the identification problem in a straightforward German way - it introduced a design code. In Berlin, this tool worked well, noted Mikhail Mamoshin, but it doesn’t suit us.

“Our architecture must be characterized by mental and identification elements of the historical code. The architect decides how to use this tool,” he explained. – Brilliant Petersburg, Leningrad architecture (especially its early subjects), we have the opportunity to form an identical cultural environment based on traditions. A period of self-identification is needed not only by architects, but also by citizens.”

According to Mikhail Mamoshin, it is time to create a platform for discussing this topic, conduct research and develop a methodological tool that will be recommendatory in nature. “I wouldn’t call recommendations rigid design code; it’s harmful to creativity.”

“I have a bad attitude towards the phrase design code,” noted Vladimir Grigoriev. – No rules can regulate beauty and architectural individuality. Professionalism implies an adequate solution to the problem in relation to the conditions that exist in a certain historical period. There should not be a design code, but a style of the territories.”

Dialogue with water

Associate Professor, Department of Architectural Design SPbGASU Vladimir Linov recalled the urban planning tradition of St. Petersburg, when an environment rich in small rivers and canals is created.

Modern architects can only dream about this. Thus, when developing the Dudenhof Quarter project, the architects tried to include water space in the fabric of residential buildings. But they were unable to do this due to strict federal water legislation, he said Head of the architectural bureau "STUDIO-17" Svyatoslav Gaikovich.

“We are not using a colossal resource - water. The development of the city along the Neva, once not included in the master plan for defense reasons, should finally begin to be realized,” said Mikhail Mamoshin.

Irina Bembel, editor-in-chief magazine "Capitel" and curator of the project MONUMENTALITÀ & MODERNITÀ - about the conference "Tradition and counter-tradition in architecture and fine arts Modern times."

information:

The theme of tradition in modern architecture, as a rule, comes down to a question of style, moreover, in the minds of almost the majority - the “Luzhkovsky” style. But even impeccable historical stylizations are perceived today as empty shells, dead copies, while their prototypes were filled with living meaning. Even today they continue to talk about something, and the older the monument, the more important its silent monologue seems.
The fundamental irreducibility of the phenomenon of tradition to the issue of style became the leitmotif of the scientific and practical conference “Tradition and counter-tradition in architecture and fine arts of modern times” held in St. Petersburg.

Background

But first, about the project itself. “MONUMENTALITÀ & MODERNITÀ” translated from Italian means “monumentality and modernity.” The project arose spontaneously in 2010, under strong impression"Mussolini" architecture seen in Rome. Besides me, its origins included the architect Rafael Dayanov, the Italian philologist-Russianist Stefano Maria Capilupi and the art critic Ivan Chechot, who came up with our beautiful motto.
The result of joint efforts was the conference “Architecture of Russia, Germany and Italy of the “totalitarian” period”, which turned out to have a distinct “Italian flavor”. But even then it became clear to us that it was pointless to remain within the zones of the main dictatorial regimes - the topic of interwar and post-war neoclassicism was much broader.
Therefore, the next conference of the project was dedicated to the “totalitarian” period as a whole (“Problems of perception, interpretation and preservation of the architectural and artistic heritage of the “totalitarian” period”, 2011). However, this framework also turned out to be tight: I wanted to make not only a horizontal, but also a vertical section, trace the genesis, and evaluate further transformations.

The 2013 conference expanded not only geographical, but also chronological boundaries: it was called “ Classical tradition in architecture and fine arts of modern times."
It must be said that despite the virtual absence of a budget, our conferences each time attracted about 30 speakers from Russia, the CIS, Italy, the USA, Japan, Lithuania, not to mention absentee participants. Most guests traditionally come from Moscow. Over the past years, the co-organizers of our events have been the St. Petersburg State University ( Smolny Institute), Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy, European University in St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering. And most importantly, we managed to create a positively charged field of rich and relaxed professional communication, where theorists and practitioners exchanged experiences in the same audience.
Finally, the theme of the last conference was the phenomenon of tradition as such, since the term “classical” is strongly associated with columns and porticoes, while tradition, as is known, can also be orderless.

Thus, moving from the particular to the general, we came to the question of the very essence of tradition, and the main task was to transfer the topic from the category of style to the category of meaning.

So, the 2015 conference was called “Tradition and counter-tradition in architecture and fine arts of modern times.” To the constant organizers - the magazine "Kapitel" in my person and the Council for Cultural and historical heritage The Union of Architects of St. Petersburg, represented by Rafael Dayanov, added the Research Institute of Theory and History of Architecture and Urban Planning, which was represented by the scientific secretary Diana Capen-Vardits, who specially came from Moscow.

Tradition and counter-tradition

The theme of tradition in modern times is as relevant as it is inexhaustible. Today I have a feeling of a question being posed, which has begun to take on, albeit vague, but still visible outlines. And they began to touch this block from different sides: what is tradition in the original philosophical sense? How was it understood and is it being understood in the context of modern times? As stylistics or as a fundamental orientation towards the timeless, eternal? What manifestations of tradition in the twentieth century need to be reassessed? Which ones do we see today, which ones do we consider the most interesting and meaningful?
For me, the fundamental antagonism of two superstyles - tradition and modernism - is a question of fundamental ethical and aesthetic guidelines. The culture of tradition was focused on the idea of ​​the Absolute, expressed by the concepts of truth, goodness and beauty. In the culture of tradition, ethics and aesthetics strived for identity.

As the idea of ​​the Absolute began to erode in modern times, the paths of ethics and aesthetics diverged further and further, until traditional ideas of beauty turned into a dead shell, a peeling mask, filled with many secular, rational meanings. All these new meanings lay in the material plane of linear progress, the sacred vertical disappeared. There has been a transition from the sacred, qualitative world to the pragmatic, quantitative world. By the beginning of the twentieth century, a new paradigm of consciousness and an industrial mode of production exploded forms that had become alien from within - the avant-garde emerged as the art of negation.

In the second half of the twentieth century, the picture became more complicated: having abandoned the idea of ​​the Absolute as an invisible tuning fork and even the avant-garde anti-orientation towards it as a starting point, culture exists in a formless field of subjectivity, where everyone can choose their own personal coordinate system. The very principle of systematicity, the very concept of structurality is called into question, the very possibility of the existence of a unique unifying center is criticized (poststructuralism in philosophy). In architecture, this was expressed in postmodernism, deconstructivism, and nonlinearity.

To put it mildly, not all colleagues accept my point of view. The position of our absentee participant G.A. seemed closest to me. Ptichnikova (Moscow), speaking about the value essence of tradition, about its vertical core, “bombarded” by “horizontal” innovations.
I.A. writes about the sacred basis of tradition in his correspondence report. Bondarenko. However, he rejects the idea of ​​counter-tradition: the transition from an essential orientation towards an unattainable ideal to the vulgar-utopian idea of ​​calculating and embodying it here and now, he calls the absolutization of tradition (from my point of view, this is the absolutization of individual formal manifestations of tradition to the detriment of its essence, and in the period of modernism and completely tradition inside out, that is, precisely counter-tradition). In addition, Igor Andreevich is optimistic about modern architectural and philosophical relativism, seeing in it a kind of guarantor of non-return to the undue absolutization of the relative. It seems to me that such a danger cannot in any way justify the oblivion of the truly Absolute.

A significant portion of researchers do not see the antagonism between tradition and modernity at all, believing that architecture can only be “bad” and “good”, “author’s” and “imitative”, that the imaginary contradiction between classics and modernism is an indissoluble dialectical unity. I have come across the opinion that Le Corbusier is a direct successor of the ideas of the ancient classics. At our current conference, V.K. Linov, in continuation of the theses of 2013, identified the fundamental, core features inherent in “good” architecture of any era.
The report of I.S. sounded like a parallel. Hare, who focused on the functional and practical (“usefulness - strength”), basic manifestations of architecture of all times. Personally, I was sorry that Vitruvian “beauty”, which the author completely attributed to the private sphere of taste, was initially removed from this analysis - main secret and the elusive intrigue of tradition. It is also a pity that, even trying to comprehend global architectural processes, researchers most often ignore parallel phenomena in philosophy - again, contrary to Vitruvius...

I have long had the feeling that everything new in modern architecture that has a creative meaning is a well-forgotten old thing, inherent in traditional architecture from time immemorial. It became new only in the context of modernism. Now new names are being invented for these fragments of the lost essence, new directions are being derived from them.
- Phenomenological architecture as an attempt to escape the dictates of abstract rationality to the detriment of sensory experience and the subjective experience of space.
- Institutional architecture as a search for basic, extra-left foundations of various traditions.
- The genre of meta-utopia in architecture as a manifestation of a super idea, “metaphysics of architecture” is an echo of well-forgotten Platonic eidos.
- Organic architecture in its old and new varieties as a utopian attempt by man to return to the bosom of nature that he is destroying.
- New urbanism, polycentrism as a desire to rely on pre-modern urban planning principles.
- Finally, the classical order and other formal and stylistic signs of tradition...
The list goes on.

All these scattered, fragmentary meanings today are opposed to each other, whereas initially they were in a living, dialectical unity, naturally born, on the one hand, from basic, integral ideas about the world as a sacred hierarchical cosmos, and on the other, from local tasks, conditions and methods of production. In other words, traditional architecture expressed timeless values ​​in contemporary language. Incredibly diverse, it is united by genetic kinship.
Modern appeals to tradition tend to take the opposite approach: they involve different (usually fragmented, particular) modern meanings expressed using elements of traditional language.
It seems that the search for a full-fledged alternative to modernism is a question of the meaning of tradition, and not of one or another of its forms, a question value orientation, a question of returning to the absolute coordinate system.

Theory and practice

This year the circle of active practitioners who took part in our conference has become even wider. In the mutual communication of art critics, designers, architectural historians, as well as representatives of related arts (though still rare), stable stereotypes are destroyed, the idea of ​​art critics as dry, meticulous snobs who have no idea about the real process of design and construction, and of architects as about smug and limited art businessmen who are only interested in the opinions of customers.

In addition to attempts to understand the fundamental processes in architecture, many conference reports were devoted to concrete manifestations traditions in the architecture of modern times, starting from the unchanged “totalitarian” period and ending with the present day.
Pre-war architecture of Leningrad (A.E. Belonozhkin, St. Petersburg), London (P. Kuznetsov, St. Petersburg), Lithuania (M. Ptashek, Vilnius), urban planning of Tver (A. A. Smirnova, Tver), points of contact between avant-garde and tradition in urban planning Moscow and Petrograd-Leningrad (Yu. Starostenko, Moscow), the genesis of Soviet Art Deco (A.D. Barkhin, Moscow), preservation and adaptation of monuments (R.M. Dayanov, St. Petersburg, A. and N. Chadovichi, Moscow) - these and other “historical” topics smoothly transitioned into the problems of today. The reports of St. Petersburg residents A.L. were devoted to the issues of introducing new architecture into the historical center of our city. Punina, M.N. Mikishatieva, partly V.K. Linova, as well as M.A. Mamoshin, who shared his own experience of working in the historical center.

Moscow speakers N.A. spoke about examples of informal, essential disclosure of tradition in modern Japanese architecture. Rochegova (with co-author E.V. Barchugova) and A.V. Gusev.
Finally, examples of the formation of a new habitat based on tradition were demonstrated from Muscovite M.A. from his own practice. Belov and St. Petersburg resident M.B. Atayants. Moreover, if Mikhail Belov’s village near Moscow is clearly designed for the “cream of society” and is still empty, then the “City of Embankments” for economy class in Khimki by Maxim Atayants is filled with life and is an extremely human-friendly environment.

Babylonian confusion

Enjoyment of communication with colleagues and overall professional satisfaction from bright event did not, however, prevent us from making an important critical observation. Its essence is not new, but is still relevant, namely: by delving into particulars, science is rapidly losing the whole.
Traditionalist philosophers N. Berdyaev and Rene Guenon loudly declared about the crisis of a fragmented, essentially positivist, mechanical-quantitative science already at the beginning of the twentieth century. Even earlier, the largest theologian and philologist, Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov). In the 1930s, the phenomenologist Husserl called for a return on a new level to a pre-scientific, syncretic view of the world. And this unifying way of thinking “must choose the naive manner of speech characteristic of life and at the same time use it in proportion to how it is required for the obviousness of evidence.”

This “naivety of speech”, clearly expressing clear thoughts, is, in my opinion, sorely lacking today in architectural science, which is replete with new terms, but often suffers from a blurred meaning.
As a result, delving into the texts of the reports and getting to the bottom of things, you are surprised at how people sometimes talk about the same things in different languages. Or, on the contrary, they invest completely different meaning in the same terms. As a result, the experience and efforts of the best specialists are not only not consolidated, but often remain completely closed to their colleagues.

I cannot say that the conference managed to completely overcome these language and semantic barriers, but the very possibility of live dialogue seems important. Therefore, we, the organizers, consider one of the most important tasks of the project to be the search for a conference format that is maximally aimed at active listening and discussion.
In any case, the three-day intensive exchange of opinions became extremely interesting; it was nice to hear words of gratitude from colleagues and wishes for further communication. S.P. Shmakov wished that the speakers would spend more time on modern St. Petersburg architecture “with a personal touch,” this would bring even closer together the representatives of a single, but split into separate sections of the profession.

Comments from colleagues

S.P. Shmakov, Honored Architect of the Russian Federation, Corresponding Member of IAAME:
“On the topic of the last conference, dedicated to “tradition and counter-tradition,” I can confirm that the topic is relevant at all times, as it touches on a huge layer of creativity, painfully deciding the issue the relationship between traditions and innovation in art in general and architecture in particular. In my opinion, these two concepts are two sides of the same coin, or the yin and yang of eastern wisdom. This is a dialectical unity, where one concept smoothly flows into another and vice versa. Innovation, which at first rejected the traditions of historicism, soon becomes a tradition itself. However, having spent a long period in his clothes, he then strives back into the fold of historicism, which can be qualified as a new and bold innovation. Today you can find such examples when, tired of the dominance of glass architecture, you suddenly see an appeal to the classics, which you just want to call a new innovation.

Now I will clarify my thoughts on the possible form of such a conference. So that practicing architects and art critics do not exist in parallel worlds, one could imagine their face-to-face clash, when a practicing architect reporting his work is joined as an opponent by an art critic and they try to give birth to the truth in a friendly dispute. Even if the birth is unsuccessful, it will still be useful for the audience. A lot of such pairs could be assembled, and the participants-spectators of these battles could, by raising their hands (why not?) take the positions of one or the other.”

M.A. Mamoshin, architect, vice-president of St. Petersburg SA, professorIAA, academician of MAAM, corresponding member of RAASN, head of Mamoshin Architectural Workshop LLC:
“The last conference, dedicated to the topic “traditions - counter-traditions in the architecture of modern times,” attracted the participation of not only professional art historians, but also practicing architects. For the first time, there has been a symbiosis of practice and art historical information in the context of this topic, which leads to the idea of ​​the need to revive such practical (in the literal sense of the word!) conferences. Overcoming this barrier between practicing architects and architectural theorists is not a new idea. In the 30-50s, the main task at the Academy of Architecture was to combine the theory and practice of the current moment. This was the flowering of theory and practice in their unity. These two essential things complemented each other. Unfortunately, in the revived Academy (RAASN) we see that the block of art historians (theory) and practicing architects is divided. Isolation occurs when theorists are absorbed in internal problems, and practitioners do not analyze the current moment. I believe that further movement towards bringing theory and practice closer together is one of the main tasks. I express my gratitude to the conference organizers who took a step along this path.”

D.V. Capen-Vardits, candidate of art history, scientific secretary of NIITIAG:
“The fourth conference within the framework of the MONUMENTALITÀ & MODERNITÀ project left the impression of an unusually busy day. A dense program of more than 30 reports right during the meetings was supplemented by unplanned detailed presentations on the topic, and the discussion that began during the discussion of the reports smoothly turned into informal lively communication between participants and listeners during breaks and after the meetings. It is obvious that not only the theme of the conference declared by the organizers about the problem of the genesis and relationship between tradition and counter-tradition, but also the very format of its organization and holding attracted many different participants and listeners: university professors (Zavarikhin, Punin, Vaytens, Lisovsky), practicing architects (Atayants , Belov, Mamoshin, Linov, etc.), researchers (Mikishatyev, Konysheva, Gusev, etc.), restorers (Dayanov, Ignatiev, Zayats), graduate students of architectural and art universities. The ease with which people from the same workshop, but of different views, occupations, and ages found common language, undoubtedly, was the merit of the organizer and presenter of the conference, editor-in-chief of the magazine “Kapitel” I.O. Bembel. By bringing together interesting and interested participants and managing to create a very relaxed atmosphere, she and her colleagues who led the sessions always guided the overall discussion in a professional and diplomatic manner. Thanks to this, the most pressing topics (new construction in historical cities, problems of restoration of monuments) were able to be discussed taking into account all points of view, in the usual professional life having little chance or desire to be mutually heard. Perhaps the conference could be compared to an architectural salon, where anyone can speak and anyone can discover something new. And this is the most important quality of the conference and its main point of attraction.

The creation of a permanent platform for professional discussion, the idea of ​​overcoming intra-shop disunity between theorists and practitioners, historians and innovators for a comprehensive discussion of architectural problems in the broad context of culture, society, politics and economics is a huge achievement. The need for such a discussion is obvious even from the number of ideas and proposals for “improving” the genre and format of the conference that the participants put forward at the last round table. But even if the scale and format of the conference and the enthusiasm of its organizers and participants are maintained, a wonderful future awaits it.”

M.N. Mikishatyev, architectural historian, senior researcher at NIITIAG:
“Unfortunately, I was not able to listen to and watch all the messages, but the general tone of the speeches, which to some extent was set by the author of these lines, is a depressing state, if not the death of modern architecture. What we see on the streets of our city are no longer works of architecture, but products of some kind of design, and not even designed for a long life. Famous theorist A.G. Rappaport, like us, notes the “gradual rapprochement of architecture and design,” while pointing out the insurmountable divergence of these forms of creating an artificial habitat, “for design is fundamentally oriented toward mobile structures, and architecture toward stable ones,” and moreover, design according to Its very nature presupposes “the planned obsolescence of things and their liquidation, and architecture has inherited an interest, if not in eternity, then in great time.” However, A.G. Rappaport doesn't lose hope. In the article “Large-scale reduction” he writes: “However, it is possible that a general democratic reaction will arise, and a new intelligentsia that will take responsibility for correcting these trends, and architecture will be in demand by the new democratic elite as a profession capable of returning the world to its organic life."

The last day of the conference, which featured speeches by practicing architects Mikhail Belov and Maxim Atayants, showed that such a turn of events is not just a hope and a dream, but a real process that is unfolding in modern Russian architecture. M. Atayants spoke about one of the satellite cities he created in the Moscow region (see “Capital” No. 1 for 2014), where images of St. Petersburg as a New Amsterdam are concentrated in a small space. The breath of Stockholm and Copenhagen is also quite noticeable here. How comforting it must have been for its real inhabitants, having returned from work from the crazy capital, spoiled by all these plazas and high-tech, having passed the Moscow Ring Roads and roads, to find themselves in their nest, with granite embankments reflected in the canals, arched bridges and lanterns, with beautiful and various brick houses, in his cozy and not too expensive apartment... But the dream, even realized, leaves a bit of fear, brought up by Dostoevsky’s fantasies: will this whole “fictional”, all this fairy-tale town fly away, like a vision, along with its houses and smoke - into the high sky near Moscow?..”

R.M. Dayanov, co-organizer of the MONUMENTALITÀ & MODERNITÀ project, honorary architect of the Russian Federation, head of the Liteinaya Chast-91 design bureau, chairman of the Council for Cultural and Historical Heritage of St. Petersburg SA:
“The fourth conference within the framework of the MONUMENTALITÀ & MODERNITÀ project allowed us to see the path we have traveled over these four years.
When we started this project, it was assumed that we would be talking about the preservation and study of objects and cultural phenomena of a certain period, limited to 1930-1950. But, as with any delicious food, I developed an appetite for the fourth course! And suddenly practitioners joined the scientific circle. There is hope that they will continue to be actively involved in this process in order, together with art critics and architectural historians, to develop a view not only on what happened 70-80 years ago, but also on the phenomena of yesterday, today and tomorrow.

To summarize, I would like to wish that the project receives more significant, comprehensive and systematic support from the architectural workshop.

The age of globalization has brought to humanity the development of technology, industry, urban growth, a wide range of opportunities for construction, architecture, etc. However, despite the advantages, one cannot remain silent about negative factors this process. In particular, this affected architectural practice as a means of cultural, national and ethnic expression. Globalization in architecture aims to erase international boundaries. The beginning of this process is associated with the appearance on the architectural horizon of the “International Style”, as uniting nations into a single global system. At the same time, I note that we should not speak categorically and negatively regarding this movement in the architecture of the twentieth century. Firstly, its creation is inextricably linked with the post-war years of World War II, when European states laid the foundation for the modern world economy and global political philosophy, which set itself the goal of uniting nations. And naturally, architecture, as a mirror of society, expressed the coming changes in the “international style”. Secondly, representatives of this direction are leading architects and real masters, who still inspire both professionals and young students of the relevant specialty: Walter Gropius, Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Peter Behrens, etc.

However, I will not take the reader far from the main topic of the article and its problem, no matter how interesting the history of world architecture and the international style, in particular, is. Today, globalization is erasing from the face of the earth traditional architecture. This means that the concept of identification disappears architectural object by its history, culture and the uniqueness of the people that this object represents.
But architecture, as a form of art, can be an excellent mediator in intercultural and interethnic dialogue. Through architectural creations and the idea that fills them, a representative of one culture has the opportunity to better understand the traditions of another people. And in turn, history and uniqueness different nationalities our planet will not remain forgotten by the representatives of one or another nationality. One of the trends in modern architecture - regionalism or regional architecture - can accomplish this task.
The very idea of ​​using national elements in architecture is not new. Among the predecessors of regionalism among Russian architects, I will name the name of Fyodor Shekhtel, who successfully used elements of traditional Russian architecture in the direction of modernism.

Yaroslavsky Station, Moscow

It is also impossible not to mention the Russian-Byzantine style in which Konstantin Ton designed. We can say that objects of this direction are the pride of both domestic and world architecture. The first echoes of regionalism.


Cathedral of Christ the Savior, Moscow

The heyday this direction refers to the period of the second half of the twentieth century, as a response to the policy of globalization. This architectural movement implies:

• The architect's appeal to local national traditions, history, epic


• Inspiration from images of local nature, reference to the landscape


• Silhouette perception of an object


• Presence of an ethnocultural component


• Design in a historical environment


• Use of national decor


• Transformation of national architecture into a modern object

Regionalism has been successful both abroad and in our homeland. Japan, the country where a stunning synthesis of modernism and regionalism arose, gave the world masterpieces of regional architecture in the works of K. Tange. One of his famous buildings is the Yoyogi Olympic Sports Complex. The complex curved shapes emulate the ancient Japanese art of origami.

In the USSR, the direction of regional architecture was reflected in the works of V. Jorbenadze, V. Orbeladze (Palace of Ceremonial Rituals, Tbilisi. The silhouette of the building follows the shape of a mountain serpentine).

Palace of Ceremonies, Tbilisi

G. Movchan, V. Krasilnikov, S. Galadzheva (Avar Theater, Makhachkala).


Avar Theater, Makhachkala

In Tyrnauz (Kabardino-Balkaria) there are also still multi-storey residential buildings with national ornaments on their facades.

And on one of my trips to Vladikavkaz, I accidentally found one of the houses, also made in the same direction (but already reflecting the spirit of the Ossetian people).

Regional architecture did not disappear even after the collapse of the USSR. This direction is still making itself known. Today, new architectural objects are appearing in the territories of the Caucasian republics, reflecting national identity. A striking example is Grozny City (architect Jalal Kadiev), where the panorama of buildings depicts Vainakh towers and titanic warriors to the viewer.

National traditions in architecture are still relevant today. Every nation must preserve the memory of its history, traditions, and culture. And architecture, as the face of time, can become an excellent tool for this, a mediator in intercultural and interethnic dialogue.