SYNTAX 101
FILM, LITERATURE AND THE DISCOURSE OF ARCHITECTURE
or. . . . Notes For A Russian Master Class
© Osvaldo Valdes, 2000
Duck Soup
It is Christmas Day 2000 and I am back in New York watching A
Night at the Opera and thinking of Russia. It is interesing how
similar two types of compositional devices
shape many of the Marx Brothers films and events in our
Master Class in St. Petersburg. These patterns have a precise
social mode and spatial scale that, alternately repeated, are the
engine
that drive the spectrum of organizational, dramatic and artistic
possibility
in both film as well as in our conference. For example . .
.
In the films, the first type of structural device is the “Grand
Spectacle.” It is large in scale, a formidable and sublime
public
performance of the first order. In this unapologetic pageantry,
the
social status of the characters is explicit, one where doctrine and
tradition
is unceasingly recreated. These grandiose semi-theatrical events
are
characterized by an ever extended entourage of nondescript
actors.
It is quantity, not quality that mattes. Here the actors
sing,
make conciliatory speeches and toast Groucho, the eternal optimist and
ever
crafty anarchist, in his self generated and perpetually expansive
accomplishments.
Without the comic content, of course, this motif maintains
an
unexpected correspondance to our initial moments of this Conference.
After all, is it difficult to miss a relation between this rudimentary
rhetorical
device and the public scale and rousing introductions to our
program?
The Rector of the St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and
Civil
Engineering, the dynamic Yurily Pavlovich Panibratov, opens the
ceremony.
Second, in order of appearance, is Zoya Vasillievna Chalova, President
of
the St. Petersburg Library Association and Wilfried Ekstein, Director
of the
Goethe-Institute in St. Petersburg. All speakers are convincing
in
their expectations for the outcome of this Master Class. At this
moment,
all is new frontier here. It is during this initial ceremony, the
group
of participants, introduced by our moderator, Dr. Nefedov Varely
Aatollevich,
present their work and, with particular emphasis on the current and
future
state of library design, reveal their respective views on
architecture.
This initial segment is as informative as it is inspiring. After
the
meticulous preparation of the organizers, it is wonderful to finally
see
the work of these architects. It is in this segment that I am
delighted
to see the memorable and elegant work of Brigitte Hantsh and Peter
Arnke of
Berlin and pleased to listen to the perceptive and carefully crafted
comments
of Juriy Kurbatov.
As provocative as this initial portion of the conference is,
it
is the second part of the event that I treasure. This segment of
the
program of course is analogous to the second
structural
figure previously mentioned. It is characterized in
the
films by the Marx Brothers as they plot their never ending ‘Acts
Against The State.’ It is in this second phase, the second
device,
that The Brothers become ardent accomplices in their ever eternal
knotty
plots. We don’t know it yet but, for our group, it is the
work of the architecture studio that will bring us together as
colleagues
and close friends: new accomplices in the formulation of a
splendid
Russian-Cuban soup.
After the speeches and the introductions, we prepare for the
second
and most important part of the program: the competition. It will
be
the intimate ‘space of the architecture studio’ that brings our
group together, ultimately this is the space I want to examine in this
essay.
Heads or Tails:
Now, the nomination of a group of talented individuals seems as
easy and as effortless as choosing a book from a shelf. However,
if not supervised correctly, it has the potential to turn a seemingly
easy assignment into an international scandal. Happily, the
authorities have the wisdom to have this elaborate procedure be
dictated by a civilized and rational drawing of lots. A
democratic process dictated more
by the participants’ past good deeds than by their present professional
merit. At the same time, however, such an equitable method
inherently has the potential of annihilating all chances of simple
architectural
pleasure by a lack of choice in what may guarantee group
chemistry.
Conversely, if blessed by the Gods, there exists the possibility of
forming
an enduring alliance among members of the group. Nonetheless, it
has
taken months of preparation and anticipation. Numerous trips to
the
Russian Embassy, diverse projects placed on hold or extended and now we
are here, choosing sides among strangers because ‘the games are about
to begin.’ Our first pleasure is to design, or more precisely,
somehow enhance, (always a delicate proposition), a building that is
presently
under construction. We, along with the other groups, are to
unveil
our design at the end of one week. Our second delight, is the
marvelous,
even uncanny, wonderful chemistry of our design group. The Marx
Brothers
smile upon us from above...
Minimum Effort:
The building that houses the Pushkin Town Library, has a certain
symmetrical and heavy presence. It is made of concrete, with
exterior balconies and an interior two story sky lighted stair
court. There are two reading rooms which will become the
principle element of our design. The building maintains a certain
tendency towards the unconscious with allusions to a former time or
distant place. The Library is balanced in plan and has tall
ceilings and small perfunctory repetitive windows that look out over an
urban field. A field
that some day, in this expanding town, will be the site of a
multi-level
residential complex or similar development.
At first, we are inclined to see the site of our project, this real
“finished building”, with much curiosity and hopeful expectation.
After all, for all of us, it is our first architectural (real) project
in Russia. What can we do with such an imposing structure,
especially when contrasting the poetic material it is to contain?
How do we begin work on something that is under construction and almost
finished? Ironically, it is the spirit, charm and charisma of a
building under construction, with little glamour or magnetism, that
presents our first indication on how to proceed, what to propose and
along what lines we are to develop the project. Early in the
game, no matter what else, we resolve that because the major spatial
and tectonic components are in place, any profound physical change to
the structure are unwelcomed and, we therefore feel, unnecessary.
It is
important to note that early in the project we know what to do, what
strategy
to pursue, and so we turn our attention on how to develop and put our
ideas
in place. It is here that we discuss the economics of the project
and the idea of attaining ‘maximum spiritual effect with minimal
architectural effort’.
We are enthusiastic on the influence that the spirit of Pushkin, his
history and relation to Russia, has upon our undertaking.
Ultimately, we are concerned with the question: what attitude are we to
cultivate in this project? And it is here that most of our
discussion is located.
Ya vas lyubil:
Since he occupies such a unique place in Russian literature and
culture we are very fortunate to have Aleksandr Pushkin (1799-1837) as
inspiration and subject matter. Russian poet, novelist,
dramatist, and short-story writer; he is considered by many his
country's greatest poet and founder of modern Russian literature.
Playful and experimental, Pushkin instinctively adopts a vast
array of contradictory masks and personae. He writes
now seriously, now with irony, and now with irony at his own irony,
on varied moral and philosophical themes. He is ultimately a
philosophical fox, (a Russian literary Groucho Marx!) appreciating the
limitations, as well as the virtues, of any idea. As expert
parodist,
Pushkin writes a number of erotic and at times sacrilegious mock-epics,
such as "Gavriiliada" (1821), a pointed retelling of the Annunciation,
and Ruslan i Lyudmila (1820), which, after parodying epic, folk tale,
literary ballad, and romance in a spirit of pure play, ends with a
startlingly
curious somber epilogue.
In a number of Pushkin's narrative poems, plot is only
an excuse for parody of literary forms and conventions. Medny vsadnik
(1833), for example, reflects on Peter the Great and the significance
of the city of St. Petersburg, and examines the meaning of history in
relation to individual lives.
The poet's life and work are profoundly entangled with
the city of St. Petersburg. Without Pushkin, it is difficult
to understand the city's soul and its history. Through his eyes
we look today at the Admiralty building, at the monument to Peter
the Great, "The Bronze Horseman", at the Neva River, and at the
numerous
bridges and embankments that grace this lovely city. And now we
are here in our studio, paying tribute to one of the great masters of
literature.
Syntax 101 Revisited:
Because we inherit a new building in an advanced level of
construction, our strategy for this project remains in the introduction
and development of novel, even disarming narrative. We plan
to do minimal interventions, only when absolutely necessary and
always in the spirit of making a ‘gift’ to he community.
Our project is one of Letters rather than of tectonics. And so,
from the beginning, the idea of exploiting some ‘grand construction,’
of creating a “masterpiece” (making the town new and improved) is out
of the question. A history of ‘object hood’ in this modest
project for us is of little consequence; we agree that with a
clear narrative will make the specifics of construction to remain
timeless. Fueled by the works of Pushkin, the implied thesis of
our studio then is to propose an architecture of minimal construction
while having maximum literary and cognitive effect.
After much discussion, we decide to work on the two reading
rooms and, for the exception of a new sign
over
the exterior main entrance at the scale of the town, leave the
remaining building untouched. As originally planned, these
reading
rooms. including the layout of the furniture, the entrances to the
respective rooms, windows, ceiling heights, etc. are identical.
We decide to construct a conversation, an architectural dialogue,
between
what we designate ‘The Room of the Adult’ and the ‘Children’s
Room.’
Conceptually, these rooms are proposed as opposite (scale, proportion,
lighting, etc) in order to reinforce the notion of communication,
movement and flow between them. This dialogue however is subtle
and is to remain in the background; that is, it becomes noticeable
to the casual observer only after repeated use of the facility.
We construct this formal discourse with different scale furniture,
new entrances and lighting, which plays an important part of the
design.
It is our intent to construct a sculptural coding full of
commentary.
From a distance then, both rooms look the same and it is only upon
further inspection that differences become manifest. For example,
creating a child’s datum around the room, there are shelves of toys, at
a comfortable height for a child to reach, in all of the children’s
bookcases. Minimal decoration from Pushkin’s stories are
incorporated in “secret” places away from the general
view. These are for the children to discover in their daily use
of the library and for them to reference the intimidating or daunting
bookshelves.
In addition there is a supplemental dialogue that we establish in the
Chldren’s Room. With two existing small alcoves of nondescript
function already in place at opposite ends of the Children’s Room, we
decide to dedicate one to the study of ‘weights and measures.’
This becomes the ‘Room of Logic’, and is used for the display of
numbers, the Russian alphabet, Platonic
solids, etc, forming bands at different heights. The second room
becomes its opposite and is designated as the ‘Room of Fantasy.’
This latter room is at the rear of the Children’s Reading Room
and is extravagantly decorated with images from Pushkin’s Ferry
Tales.
From New York With Love:
Although uncommon to finish an essay such as this wih a
congratulatory tone, nonetheless, I wish to take this opportunity
to express my sincere and heartfelt gratitude and
appreciation for the generosity and sincere warmth I received
from everyone associated with this delightful conference. From
the other participants in the conference to the workers in
the cafeteria to the interpreters.
From the students to Dr. Panibratov, and everyone in
between,
my two week stay in St. Petersburg, through their consummate and
genuine humanity, refinement and elegance have left me with
indelible, and as Nefedov would say, ‘very good feelings’!
My special thanks to Elena Vitenberg for the much needed, ongoing
translations and for the continued and stimulating
discussion. To
Nefedov Anatolievich I cannot thank enough, both for his
inspiration and unselfish efforts in the direction of this
Master Class and of course for spending tremendously valuable
time showing a stranger his beautiful city. Thanks to Zoya
Chalova, Lyudmila Kulikova, Tatjana Julikowa and to Wilfried Eckstein
for their support for this program and for their tremendous
generosity. Last but not least, a very,
very special thanks to Manon Bursian of the
Goethe-Institute of St. Petersburg for her continued support and
generosity, wonderful insights and for having the kindness of heart to
invite me to such a memorable event and to such a wonderful city.
. . . miss you!
ov