"The Image of the City" by Kevin Lynch gave rise to the environmental approach, which expressed demographic values. In the environmental approach, architecture of a separate structure merged with the city, losing its aristocraticism and transcendental isolation. The word "lynching" is used in wordplay and means a democratic trial of the aristocratic architecture. The environmental approach results in the death of architecture. ; Книга Кевина Линча «Образ города» положила начало средовому подходу, который был выражением демократических ценностей. В средовом подходе архитектура отдельного сооружения сливалась с городом, теряя свою аристократичность и трансцендентную обособленность. Игра слов «Суд Линча» обозначает демократический суд над аристократической архитектурой. Результат средового подхода – гибель архитектуры.
The author questions the generally accepted definition of architecture as a profession, because the genuine subject of architecture has not been defined yet. The article underlines the systemless selection of subjects studied at architectural schools and an indefinite status of the architect in the democratic society. Either the crisis faced by architecture in the third millennium can finish the transformation of architecture into building design or architecture will acquire a professional status. ; В статье подвергается сомнению общепринятое определение архитектуры как профессии, поскольку подлинный предмет архитектуры не определен. Подчеркивается бессистемный набор изучаемых в архитектурных школах предметов и неопределенность статуса архитектора в демократическом обществе. Кризис, переживаемый архитектурой в третьем тысячелетии, может либо завершить превращение архитектуры в строительный дизайн, либо архитектура обретет профессиональный статус.
For the last five thousand years, the significance of architecture has been constantly decreasing. From the ancient cult, architecture first turned into art, then into a stepdaughter and a servant of the power. The contemporary structures express no common cultural mythology of life and the world. They have no proper effect of reference to sociology or philosophy. Hypothetically, it is possible to return to architecture its fundamental functions erased by the centuries-long verbal culture. ; За последние пять тысяч лет значение архитектуры непрерывно падало. Из древнего культа архитектура сначала превратилась в искусство, а затем в падчерицу и служанку власти. В современных сооружениях не выражается никакой общекультурной мифологии жизни и мира. Не дают должного эффекта обращения ни к социологии, ни к философии. В гипотетической перспективе не исключена возможность возвращения архитектуре ее основополагающих функций, стертых столетиями вербальной культуры.
In the shift from aristocratic society to democracy professional and social elites still are lacking definite cultural norms and attitudes. Rapid change of tastes and political influence blurs common attitudes and values, intuitive and rational methods of decision making, moral and artistic values. Architectural schools trying to accommodate to those changes lose their professional permanency. ; Элиты вне и внутри профессии в процессе перехода от аристократического общества ХIХ века к демократии ХХ века до сих пор не обрели устойчивых культурных ориентаций. Быстрая смена потребительских и властных сфер препятствует становлению устойчивых нормы и принципов. Судьба архитектуры зависит от того, как будут складываться элиты и насколько сама профессия сможет влиять на свой культурный статус.
Art and architecture of the avant-guard in the beginning of 20 century supposed to be connected with the general upheaval in cultural and spiritual life. But phenomenon of creative enthusiasm cannot be fully explained in terms of political and cultural events. Moving forces of that historical moment are still unexplained. It is supposed that such creative outburst could be regarded in the context of spiritual and religious practice as a hidden resurrection of irrational attitudes of cult. ; Рассматривается проблема культурно-исторического истолкования искусства и архитектуры авангарда начала ХХ века и его связи с революционными настроениями. Движущие силы творческого энтузиазма этого исторического момента все еще остаются не до конца понятыми. Высказывается предположение, что эти феномены могут получить объяснение только при условии их анализа в контексте исторической судьбы иррациональных культовых практик.
The article observes intellectual and cultural level of architecture and its important functions in social process. Historical analysis shows constant decline of intellectual level of profession, as a reaction on radical changes in its social functions and mass scale, leading to degrading of individual critical reflection and growing dependence of architecture to political and economical bureaucracy. ; Культурный уровень профессии архитектора рассматривается как условие развития архитектурной мысли и влияния архитектуры на судьбу социальных процессов. Исторический анализ свидетельствует о неуклонном падении интеллектуального и культурного уровня в профессии, вызванном изменением ее социальных функций и утратой способности к критическому осмыслению происходящих в обществе архитектуре перемен, о растущей зависимости архитектуры от экономической и политической бюрократии.
Many critics consider Richard Serra the leading sculptor of the 20th century. He is famous not only for inventing something new in sculpture (abstract sculpture compositions existed before him, having been opened by constructivist vanguard of the beginning of the 20th century). Material selections by Vladimir Tatlin and sculptures by Osip Tsadkin, as well as compositions by Henry Moor appeared before Serra. Serra is famous for transferring his works' accent from the works as they are, which could be installed in any place, to their environment. That is he saw in the sculpture a key to understanding the urban space. His crude metal sheets and profiles, rectangular and curvilinear, exceeding regular scale of sculpture, come closer to architecture. Richard Serra places them near architectural constructions as checkpoints of intermediate scale category of space located between so-called «street furniture» – lamp posts, stalls, fountains and benches – and buildings, especially huge modern ones.But the matter is not only in the scale. Serra's sculptures are not only abstract compositions that harmoniously add to the space with their spacious scale. They have some mystery, some implicit sense appearing before a pedestrian as an enigma. Their mystique opposes both street furniture and architecture. But first of all it opposes the historical sculpture with its enigma always overshadowed by historical or biographical topic. Krylov's sculpture in the Summer Garden or Minin and Pozharsky's monument on the Red Square do not strike us, because we know that those monuments are erected IN COMMEMORATION of prominent people, as fellow citizens' tribute to their great contribution to the national history. But the crude metal sheets welded at different angles – what are they for? Who needs them?As an art critic, Edward Goldman, said, fame came to Richard Serra in 1989, when the sculpture composition Tilted Arc erected eight years before it was demolished by request of the public, that did not understand its sense and was exasperated with the obvious absence of this sense. However, Serra sees his sculpture's sense not only in its filling a scale gap in the environment, but also in its instigating a man to think and to concern the environment and the space as a problem, linking this problem with a problem of human's being. Is there any other way to explain the public's indignation? Serra's sculpture compositions do not obstruct pedestrian flow and do not offend anyone's dignity or memory, do they? They act as Zen koans, as if mutely asking a spectator about the sense. Not knowing the answer, the citizen gets exasperated – not with his inability to answer, but with the sculptor (or city government), imposing this enigma to him. Only children are always happy to get an enigma. They like to train their mind in determining the sense, because they believe in the sense of being and consider themselves successors of this sense. A grown-up member of the state, both of a totalitarian one and of one with a market economy, loses this ability, believing neither in God nor in devil, neither in state officers nor in heroes. He only gets annoyed when reminded about a sense. This irritation can be explained in terms of a conflict between conviction in his right to freedom and real feeling of his fatality. He is not disposed to play with the world and the artist. He is willing only to take sedative pills, cheering drinks and all kinds of flattery. Seeing a hero made of bronze or cast iron, he feels free either to share his respect towards the hero, or to spit upon the false idol. In both cases the sense realized by him remains in his power. When this sense escapes, the illusion of his power disappears too, in other words the illusion of his rights in this world where he is kicked by those who have more power and rights.Reasoning from quite Utopian ideals of Democracy, Richard Serra believes that to train such play of mind is as necessary as to brush teeth or to button a shirt. A man with this ability not functioning falls out of the society, officially remaining its member though.But there is also another aspect – relation of such enigmas to architecture. Architecture differs from Richard Serra's sculptures not only in scale. The difference is also in the fact, that, being a plastic object like an abstract sculpture, architectural composition has social and functional status, and therefore it does not represent any special enigma. Looking at a grand construction we understand that it is a City Administration, or a Bank, or a Library, or a Museum, or… whatever having its own socially approved status and sense never doubted. So, one can treat it either with respect or with hatred, not losing the feeling of ability for sense orientation. But Serra's sculptures sometimes lead to this.Nevertheless, architecture has turned out to be sensitive to such things and it currently tries to propose an enigma to a citizen instead of suggesting its status. The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao or the Hundertwasser Viennese House in this regard come closer to sculpture, as if crushing differences between architecture and fine arts and making needless an artistic gesture such as Serra's. The question is to what extent this architectural aping is appropriate. Or maybe it is better to leave the sense space to the sculptor, focusing on the senses peculiar to architecture, which are claimed neither by Serra nor by his possible progeny. Evidently Serra experienced those problems himself, appealing to the authorities and searching for their support. Probably he was looking for support not only as an artist in need of a client, but also as an artist confronting social determinancy of architecture in urban environment. Thus he was indirectly returning to architecture its sense space, which architecture is currently ready to play with, forgetting about its sense limits. So it is a big question: whether his sculpture does harm to architecture with its competition with the latter or releases it from plays that are not appropriate to it in order to perform its maybe more sublime mission – not only to ask but also to answer the questions on the sense of being?However, solution of this problem is to what extent architects and their clients are ready to give such answers, to what extent these answers are sincere and realistic, and to what extent the society is ready to ask itself about the sense of its own being. But it is another topic.
