Bernaskoni

Your projects are very different from traditional contemporary Russian architecture — they have a different basis, a different language and philosophy; moreover, they are highly competitive at the international level as well. What is the source of this «new» approach?
I like working at the junction of contemporary art and marketing. Actually, it is creation of both an effective tool and a work of art. In this case the source is the set target. «New» is a task to be solved anew any time, without reflecting and referring to something very personal. I do not look at architecture as my ownership. Architecture belongs to environment, that is why when creating a piece of architecture one makes a definite choice depending on circumstances, but not on something personal. One just redirects the streams and manages their flow.

What is architecture for you — a trade, a way to manage the environment, transform a person or an activity, revealing something in the very foundation of the culture?
Architecture is an interface. It is a layer between the environment and the end user. It is something that helps carry out communication. I am positive that the responsibilities of a contemporary architect can no longer be confined to those of a head builder. To my mind, architecture involves much more activities that any other profession. The job of an architect is somewhat similar to that of a DJ — he mixes several records. A number of melodies are to be mixed in one to make a new play. Contemporary art, politics, business, industrial and communicative design — all of these a direct responsibilities of an architect. If one fails to be engaged in all these activities simultaneously, one fails to separate oneself from what he is doing. One begins seeing that his melody is ideal, and this will be a dead end.

Are there any universal principals penetrating and defining tasks of any architecture — outside of the bounds of time and environment? Perhaps each has one’s own architecture and rules? Is there still any place for timeless architecture?
Architecture is reactive. I believe that architecture is always connected to a certain place, events and people creating it. Place and time shape the form. Architecture is a reflection of circumstances.

Your works cannot be called just architectural or just artistic; they seem to be on the boundary of both. Is it connected with a broad gauge approach or is a reflection of the tendency to enhance functionality and possibilities of architecture?
I think it is stupid to spend so much money and receive some rubbish which is also very expensive to pull down. A great amount of people contribute to the construction of the building. Among them are customers, architects, designers, engineers, artists, art historians and, finally, people who will later use this building or look at it in the street. Why not make some effort and create something beautiful?

Why do you think that architecture is a means of communication, and why this form of art is dominating in this function? Why is it neither graphic art nor the theatre or performance or literature which in different stages of the culture’s development determined human mentality and perception and built people’s relations with environment?
As Winston Churchill once said, «Architecture is the dress everyone wears». Architecture is more expensive than we tend to think, because it shapes the way of life. Those simple actions we do every day — get up, cook breakfast, go downstairs, walk along the street etc. — all these actions shape out attitude to the world. As this entire road is shaped and the environment along a person’s way has been designed, I believe it exerts much influence. This is architecture of each single person as his communication with the outer world.

It is apparent that your projects bring some idea, a message; how does it differ from that sense that should be inherent in any work of art a priori?
Architecture is different in its function from a work of graphic art or, for example, a monument. This is an applied object, an essential thing. I have a very sceptical attitude towards that sort of architecture where the author fails to explain why he has chosen this or that form. Most often an architect, being unable to find an explanation, makes a reference to art, though sometimes is also looks good.

Is there any unquestionable authority for you in the world of architects, a person whose opinion is always very valuable to you?
The two leaders for me are Sergey Sitar and Charlie Koolhaas. I am very much thankful to my teachers who shaped my architectural base. These are Yuli Nikolaevich Orsa, who unclosed to me the world of architecture; Leonid Viktorovich Demyanov, who unclosed to me the form; and Mikhail Anatolievich Belov, who unclosed to me the way of thinking. I would like to say a special «thank you» to Eugeny Viktorovich Asse, who helps me to see things in a more realistic light.

The period of the 1920s may be considered the foundation and blossom of the Russian architecture. Has the architecture of that period influenced your works in any way?
That was the time when the authorities already set the task but were more engaged in other business. The architects managed to make a few interesting offers and realize them. What was designed in Russia at that time is actually all contemporary world architecture.

You also undertake any new projects with much enthusiasm, even those not connected with architecture in any way, whatever they may be, publishing or clipmaking. Has there been any other area of activity which was as valuable to you as your architectural work? Why has architecture become a priority?
It just happened so. When looked upon through the eyes of a foreigner, which we all often tend to do, modern Russia is not much to look at, as good architectural projects are local; there is no global and universal approach; no horizons, single environment and, sometimes, no good taste.

What is your attitude towards these problems as a young architect and a co-curator of ArchMoscow; do you see any solutions? Is it possible to be talking about the resurrection of Russian architecture today?
These questions were asked by me and Kirill Asse in the festival ArchMoscow «The Present Present» and «Dead End» a few years ago. Only a few architects were positive. Other made commercial offers. I think we are all a little confused. We have no single architectural community to define priorities and discuss what would be good and what would be bad. I think we need some sort of an architectural parliament where the professional community would discuss the topics of much importance to the city and make a consolidated decision to be realized.

How much has you idea of the architect’s profession changed since you studied in the Moscow Institute of Architecture (MIA)?
The MIA has the following approach: the main task of an architect is to make something «beautiful» and attractive on a visual level. When I began working I found out that the customer wants just the same thing. I think it is connected with mentality. A Russian person looks at architecture in the same way as at clothes or decoration, and he looks at an architect as a decoration specialist. This means that the MIA has a right approach. That is why the architecture in this country is shit.

Which problems in modern architecture are more important for you?
The problem is that architecture is often looked upon only as a way to make money. In this case it fails its main task — a dialogue. Architecture is an intermediary between the environment and the end user. This is a bilateral interface. On the one hand we must make it comfortable for living; on the other hand we must pay due consideration to the environment and preserve its qualities. By environment I mean not only the place, but also all current events, a political situation, traditions and plans for future.

What is your attitude towards fashionable trends and tendencies?
I am both fashionable trends and tendencies (laughs).

All architectural projects can be divided into those environment-oriented, which are harmoniously in-built in the environment, and those constructing a certain townplanning perspective, horizon, and designed to produce a certain effect and become a hallmark and a dominating point in environment. Which projects are closer to you?
This is a good question. I am striving to produce hallmark pieces of architecture, harmoniously in-built in the environment and constructing the town-planning perspective and horizon. Somewhat like that…

Do you always know for sure what kind of project it should be, or do you have just a general idea which is transformed and reconsidered in the process and results in a certain shape?
I think that any project is a coincidence of circumstances. There is of course any sign, an icon, to define the program. Then it is like making a sculpture. I am starting to eliminate all superfluous to receive an object ideal in its proportions. This process of eliminating is designing by itself. If the program is performed, the thing will work.

To what extend the message inherent in the project defines its appearance and shape?
Always. The form is always secondary to the function. Then the function works in this form. If everything is done right, the thing will work.

You have mentioned many times that the most important things for any project are simplicity, intelligibility and the moment of gravitation. What is the essence of simplicity of your architecture? Why is simplicity so attractive to you as the author?
A man lives in the world which is very difficult to comprehend. Architecture simplifies this task. This is nothing but navigation. If it is simple and intelligible, it will be easier for the user to operate the environment. It is difficult to make simple things. But when I manage, the thing shall work.

Critics like finding something common to all works. Do you believe your projects to be the part of something integral?
This is the thing. This is the most important in what I do. — I see any project and any action as a part of the whole.

Which of your projects do you think are the most significant for your work and the most successive vehicle of your philosophy? Why?
This project is not ready yet, but I am working on it and I am close to it.

Who do you make your project for? For what kind of people?
My client is an active and a self-assured person. He is ready for innovations and he believes in traditions. He is open to a dialogue and changes. And, the most important thing is that this person is striving to make this world better.

What is more interesting for you — to design social, administrative and business spaces (in concerns both architecture and interior), to design residential complexes or cultural facilities? Why?
It is all the same to me. Each project is a solution of a certain task. The scale, function, lifetime of the building are not of much importance.

What do you think of the situation when the organizers of the competition for the museum design in Perm refused to realize the winner project? What is your general attitude towards the competitions carried out in Russia — let’s just take the much featured problem with the Mariinsky Theater project by Dominique Perrault? Why is there no call for large-scale ideas in Russia?
Bad management. If you have set your mind to do something — do it. If you fail to realize your plan, then you are either a bad manager, or your plan is weak, which, in its turn, also means you are a bad manager. I just don’t understand why we should keep bad managers.

In one of your interviews you said that exploratory designing is good training; what are you training for?
I am training every day to make the coolest project in my life. I see sense only in making cool projects.

Would you like to realize any of your projects outside of Russia, in Europe or any other place?
You will learn it at the proper time.