ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНАЯ ПРОГРАММА2011/12

STRELKA

EDUCATIONPROGRAMME2011/12

RESEARCH REPORTURBAN CULTURE

RESEARCH REPORTURBAN CULTURE

ДИРЕКТОР Михаэль Шиндхельм

ПРЕПОДАВАТЕЛИ Станислав Львовский, Анна Бутенко

СТУДЕНТЫ Марина Анциперова, журналист, Москва; Екатерина Вариончик, архитектор, Москва; Елена Дендиберя, архитектор, Самара; Алена Зайцева, архитектор, Москва; Михаил Козлов, архитектор, Москва; Марина Лаба, дизайнер, Тольятти; Татьяна Полякова, архитектор, Уфа; Мария Семененко, политолог, Москва; Сильвия Франческини, куратор/дизайнер, Милан

ЭКСПЕРТЫ-КОНСУЛЬТАНТЫ Анна Бокова, архитектор; Эстер Гантнер, исследователь стрит-арта; Наталья Душкина, историк архитектуры; Григорий Заславский, театральный критик; Маргерит Йоли, основатель Hybrid-Plattform; Арес Каландинес, консультант по маркетингу, InPolis; Кирилл Лебедев, художник; Елизавета Лихачева, историк искусства; Анна Манюк, специалист по развитию культурных кластеров; Филипп Мейзер, архитектор, куратор; Виктор Мизиано, куратор; Михаил Мост, художник; Андрей Муратов, культуролог; Николай Палажченко, куратор; Елена Пантелеева, директор ЦСИ «Винзавод»; Владимир Паперный, культуролог, искусствовед; Антон Польский, культуролог, художник; Игорь Поносов, уличный художник; Анна Ребрикова, фотограф; Григорий Ревзин, архитектурный критик; Арсений Сергеев, куратор; Барбара Страка, директор Project Zukunft; Томас Флирль, советник по культуре и науке г. Берлина (2001–2006); Алеша Хофманн, архитектор и соучредитель Think Berlin; Марина Хрусталева, менеджер в сфере культуры; Йоханна Шлаак, архитектор, соучредитель Think Berlin; Ирина Щербакова, руководитель образовательных программ общества «Мемориал»; Ева Эменлауэр-Блемерс, бывший председатель правления Project Zukunft.

DIRECTOR Michael Schindhelm

SUPERVISORS Stanislav Lvovsky, Anna Butenko

STUDENTS Marina Antsiperova, journalist, Moscow; Elena Dendiberya, architect, Samara; Silvia Fraceschini, curator/designer, Milan; Mikhail Kozlov, architect, Moscow; Marina Laba, designer, Tolyatti; Tatyana Polyakova, architect, Ufa; Maria Semenenko, political scientist, Moscow; Ekaterina Varionchik, architect, Moscow; Alena Zaytseva, architect, Moscow

EXTERNAL EXPERTS Anna Bokova, architect; Natalia Dushkina, architecture historian; Eva Emenlauer-Blömers, Project Zukunft former CEO; Thomas Flierl, senator for culture and science in Berlin (2001–2006); Eszter Gantner, street art researcher; Aljoscha Hofmann, architect, Think Berlin co-founder; Marguerite Joly, Hybrid-Plattform founder; Ares Kalandides, consultant in place marketing, InPolis; Marina Khrustaleva, cultural manager; Kirill Lebedev, artist; Elizaveta Lihacheva, art historian; Anna Manyuk, creative cluster development specialist; Philipp Meuser, architect, curator; Viktor Misiano, curator; Mikhail Most, artist; Andrey Muratov, culturologist; Nikolay Palazhchenko, curator; Elena Panteleeva, WinZavod director; Vladimir Paperny, culture expert; Anton Polsky, culturologist, artist; Igor Ponosov, street artist, author of books "Objects"; Anna Rebrikova, photographer; Grigory Revzin, architectural critic; Irina Sherbakova, director of educational program "Memorial"; Johanna Schlaack, architect, Think Berlin co-founder; Arseniy Sergeev, curator; Barbara Straka, Project Zukunft CEO; Grigory Zaslavsky, theatre critic.

ГОРОДСКАЯ КУЛЬТУРА

После падения коммунистических режимов в Восточной Европе евразийский континент пережил глубокую социальную трансформацию. Но на противоположных оконечностях Евразии события развивались по-разному: бывшие социалистические страны Европы в той или иной степени вернулись к демократическим ценностям и самым существенным образом перестроили свою политическую и экономическую систему, а Китай взял курс на строительство «гиперобщества» нового типа, основанного на глубоких экономических преобразованиях при сохранении прежнего политического устройства. Из всех бывших коммунистических государств только в России мы наблюдаем парадоксальную ситуацию: произошел разрыв с прошлым в политическом плане при сохранении последовательности в плане социальном.

Тема «городская культура» в целом связана с раскрытием условий социальной коммуникации в том или ином городе. Исследование ее состояния и развития в Москве за последние два десятилетия и сравнение ситуации в российской столице с соответствующими примерами городов других стран позволит подтвердить или опровергнуть эту гипотезу.

Девять студентов, два преподавателя и большое количество экспертов-консультантов работали над этим проектом с декабря 2011 до июня 2012 года. Я бы хотел поблагодарить всех участников работы над этим исследованием, включая Институт «Стрелка» и Анну Бокову.

Михаэль Шиндхельм, директор Июнь 2012

URBAN CULTURE

After the failure of communist regime the Eurasian continent went through deep social transformations, but on the opposite sides of Eurasia things developed differently: the former socialist European countries to a greater or lesser extent reaccepted democratic values and deeply restructured their political and economic systems, while China took a way of developing new type of hypersociety based on profound economic transformations, preserving the old political system. Among all former communist countries only Russia shows evidently the paradox of political discontinuity and social continuity.

Urban Culture generally reveals the conditions of social communication in a city. A research on its status and development in Moscow over the last two decades and a comparative study of its conditions in some pertinent examples abroad would enable to prove or disprove this hypothesis.

Nine students, two supervisors and a great number of external experts have worked on this project from Dec 2011 to June 2012. I want to thank all participants in the research including Strelka and Anna Bokova.

Michael Schindhelm, director June 2012

This book is designed for personal, non-commercial use. You must not use it in any other way, and, except as permitted under applicable law, you must not copy, translate, publish, licence or sell the book without our consent.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Theme introduction, Stanislav Lvovsky, supervisor 3

Invisible bigness: soviet skyscraper in a post-soviet world Marina Antsiperova, Mikhail Kozlov 4

Art as a socio cultural interface for the urban environment Elena Dendiberya 18

Russian Contemporary Art: between delay and emancipation Silvia Franceschini 28

Extract from the article «Although Moscow is not Rio» at Gazeta.ru, 4 april 2012, Michael Schindhelm 38

Social place branding Marina Laba 40

Cultural clusters as a social magnet Tatyana Polyakova 52

Extract from the article «Don’t speak Russian only» at Gazeta.ru, 21 march 2012, Michael Schindhelm 63

The university campus in Moscow through years: diversity in transformation Maria Semenenko 64

Underground museum Ekaterina Varionchik 76

Extract from the article «Graffiti as new urban language» at Gazeta.ru, 18 april 2012, Michael Schindhelm 88

Urban interventions in Moscow Alena Zaytseva 90

Theme introduction

The motto we heard most often during this academic year from the students was ironically “Urban culture is everything”. Indeed. Urban culture is not only a thriving field of interdisciplinary studies, but also a manifestation of the in-depth social and political processes in today’s Moscow, a huge and bustling megalopolis, now home to at least 13% of Russia’s population. The real value of urban culture studies is its surprising ability to reveal what is meant to be well hidden – not from the newcomers or foreigners, but from society itself. Just as watching closely the everyday life of a person reveals hidden motives, fears and unconscious repression of traumatic events in the past (either recent or distant), urban culture studies reveal the true condition of the society and of mass psychology.

Research on the perception of Moscow skyscrapers conducted by Marina Ansiperova and Mikhail Kozlov shows us that buildings which once were ultimate symbols of Stalinism have almost disappeared from the mental map of the city due to the fact that this extremely traumatic period of history was suppressed instead of being worked out. Research on the PFUR campus made by Maria Semenenko demonstrates that the only more or less working model of urban diversity exists on the ruins of the Soviet (and in this case rather localized) experience. Silvia Franceschini’s detailed study of the post-Soviet contemporary art system in Moscow reveals the simulative, “cargo” nature of the existing structure as well as the lack of the ultimately important parts, giving an answer to the question “Why contemporary art has not become an important, let alone vital part of Moscow urban culture landscape, unlike in many European cities”. The same simulation was disclosed by Elena Dendiberiya in her research on the younger generation of Moscow artists: a great lack of what is usually called community art was discovered. Most young artists are either addressing a global political agenda or just try to fit themselves into an almost non-existent Russian art market, whereas only very few work on a grassroot level. Elena Dendiberiya as well as Marina Antsiperova and Mikhail Kozlov suggest pilot projects to illustrate their approach to what was found during the research.

Another significant approach is demonstrated by the works of Marina Laba and Tatyana Polyakova. Both find that the top-down practices of territory branding (Laba) and creation of postindustrial clusters (Polyakova) are ineffective and fail to provide sustainable results for the city and the people. Both suggest bottom-up approaches implying step-by-step social engagement, which is also the central point of Dendiberiya’s art project. Lack of such involvement nowadays obviously represents the atomization of modern Russian society, aggravated by the reality of the Moscow megalopolis.

Ekaterina Varionchik uncovers the transitional state of the Moscow metro, which is somehow stuck in the limbo between being an ideological narrative, a static museum of soviet architecture, and just a transit system as such. This intermediate state is at least partly a result of the insufficient development of the culture of memory, which is often understood as merely preservation. Varionchik also sees a great opportunity here: the historical and cultural significance of the metro suggests the possibility to use it as an enormous live urban museum, enriching the cultural life of the city and making it more accessible for those living in the peripheral areas.

Research on urban interventions by Alena Zaytseva reveals a certain degree of change happening in Russian society today. The artists she explores demonstrate ability and willingness to be real agents of change and to work with an urban landscape on a local level while addressing at the same time important political and social issues.

Mostly our findings confirm the starting hypothesis of the theme. In different ways they illustrate the fact that Russian society demonstrates continuity of social practices inherited from the Soviet period in spite of the political discontinuity. Lately this hypothesis is also supported by the atavistic nature of changes in political institutions. At the same time, studying different aspects of urban culture we definitely witness a very gradual but permanent accumulation of social capital and the rise of grassroot activism and small social networks, which will in due course change the face of Moscow urban life – and the city itself.

Stanislav Lvovsky, supervisor

14

6

1

3

4

2

1

3

45

9

10

78

6

2

3

14

5

67

7

9

10

8

13

12

2

11

5

Invisible bigness: soviet skyscraper in a post-soviet world

Moscow’s seven Soviet skyscrapers have “disappeared” from people’s perceptions as a result of a shapeless culture of memory.

The last century still remains a burn-ing question in our society – it was a time of great achievements and great losses. The country was as big as the roman empire, one of the greatest mil-itary victories was won, man traveled into space, but at the same time more or less everyone suffered from terror. It was the time of big narratives, big dreams but simultaneously a time of big fears and big sacrifices. This time is over,  politics have changed, but society seems to somehow remain in that period – there have been no seri-ous discussions and no global decision was taken on how to deal with the Soviet past.

The Soviet period is somehow – maybe formally – gone, but it left many traces. One of the most powerful and durable elements embodying this time is archi-tecture. Totalitarian architecture is a very special case as its ideological mes-sage is very strong. In our research, we took Moscow’s seven sisters, which were the most symbolic buildings of Stalin’s time, and we endeavored to the best of our ability to follow their mythology. These Soviet skyscrapers were created to be a part of the culture of memory, to glorify the socialist era, and we wanted to figure out what they stand for today and tomorrow--or, more broadly, determine the place

of Soviet utopia in contemporary Moscow.We traced their place in history, culture and media as well as the in the stories of inhabitants and of Soviet architecture lovers. We found out that that their significance in Moscow’s urban culture changed dramatically from a central element to a structure that is not that much recognized anymore and “absent” from people’s perceptions. They symbolize a time that people do not know how to deal with. The difficulties that the entire society has with these symbols render them almost invisible.

First, we outline the timeline of the cloud of meaning surrounding these buildings, i.e. their mythology.[1] They were made to commemorate the époque, but later events changed much of their destiny and created new meanings. New meanings were added, old meanings were forgotten, time went by and their importance declined. We intended to discern what they stand for today, i.e. their current

meaning in urban culture with the help of cultural and media references, a social survey and a real estate study. We wanted to prove our feeling that these buildings remain the “hidden obvious” in the city, Soviet bigness has paradoxically vanished from people’s perceptions.  Our explanation relies on the condi-tions of the culture of memory in Moscow – shapeless, diffused and even nonexistent. We made a comparison

with Berlin’s conditions of culture of memory and its attitude towards Stalinist architecture. We discussed another strategy for dealing with her-itage and weighed its advantages and disadvantages.Finally, we created a manifesto with a proposal for how to establish these buildings in the urban culture of contemporary Moscow. Our main goal is to develop the culture of memory, as we feel that there is a cry for a one.

A symbolic building is a building that has a strong ideological message, i.e. in the design of these buildings ideol-ogy is at least as important as their functionalityDuring Stalin’s (1928-1953) adminis-tration, around 5,000 buildings were constructed in Moscow [2]. They had differed values: most of them were quite ordinary, but some of them were more important due to their ideological message. These “politically important” buildings can be divided into three categories: (1) Functional-

ity dominates over ideology, these are remarkable houses, constructed in neoclassicism style, with a light ideo-logical message; (2) Functionality is as important as ideology, and these are building-symbols, mostly constructed in empire style, due to their strong ideological message they became the symbol of the time; (3) Ideology dominates over functionality, these are very important buildings, with the strongest ideological input, made to glorify the socialist era and to compete with other countries. The seven Soviet skyscrapers fall in the third category--they are Soviet architectural attempts to represent bigness.

SyMBOlIc BuIlDINg

Methodology

Hypothesis

Marina Antsiperova and Mikhail Kozlov

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

8

10

Moscow State University building

1

“Ukraine” hotel2

House on Kotelnicheskaya

3

Foreign Ministry Affairs building

4

Building on Kudrinskaya square

5

Building on Krasnye Vorota square

6

“Leningradskaya” hotel

Northern river-boat station

VDNH main pavilion

Theatre of soviet army

Bauman MSTU

Theatre of Mossovet

“Pekin” hotel

State counsil

“Moscow” hotel

House on Mohovaya street

by Geoltovsky

House on Kosmodeni-

anovskaya emb.

House on Novinsky boulevard, 18

House on Pease avenue, 120

House on Zemlyanoy Val, 46

House under the skirt

House on T.Shevchenko emb.

House of generals (Leningradsky

avenue, 75)

House of architects (Rostovskaya emb., 5)

House on Frunzenskaya emb.,

24/1

Gorky park main entrance

House of NKVD workers

Frunze military college

People’s commissariat of military and sea

affairs

Main building of headquarters of land

forces

House on the embankment

12

7

13

14

4

14

6

1

3

4

2

1

3

45

9

10

78

6

2

3

14

5

67

7

9

10

8

13

12

2

11

5

Invisible bigness: soviet skyscraper in a post-soviet world

Moscow’s seven Soviet skyscrapers have “disappeared” from people’s perceptions as a result of a shapeless culture of memory.

The last century still remains a burn-ing question in our society – it was a time of great achievements and great losses. The country was as big as the roman empire, one of the greatest mil-itary victories was won, man traveled into space, but at the same time more or less everyone suffered from terror. It was the time of big narratives, big dreams but simultaneously a time of big fears and big sacrifices. This time is over,  politics have changed, but society seems to somehow remain in that period – there have been no seri-ous discussions and no global decision was taken on how to deal with the Soviet past.

The Soviet period is somehow – maybe formally – gone, but it left many traces. One of the most powerful and durable elements embodying this time is archi-tecture. Totalitarian architecture is a very special case as its ideological mes-sage is very strong. In our research, we took Moscow’s seven sisters, which were the most symbolic buildings of Stalin’s time, and we endeavored to the best of our ability to follow their mythology. These Soviet skyscrapers were created to be a part of the culture of memory, to glorify the socialist era, and we wanted to figure out what they stand for today and tomorrow--or, more broadly, determine the place

of Soviet utopia in contemporary Moscow.We traced their place in history, culture and media as well as the in the stories of inhabitants and of Soviet architecture lovers. We found out that that their significance in Moscow’s urban culture changed dramatically from a central element to a structure that is not that much recognized anymore and “absent” from people’s perceptions. They symbolize a time that people do not know how to deal with. The difficulties that the entire society has with these symbols render them almost invisible.

First, we outline the timeline of the cloud of meaning surrounding these buildings, i.e. their mythology.[1] They were made to commemorate the époque, but later events changed much of their destiny and created new meanings. New meanings were added, old meanings were forgotten, time went by and their importance declined. We intended to discern what they stand for today, i.e. their current

meaning in urban culture with the help of cultural and media references, a social survey and a real estate study. We wanted to prove our feeling that these buildings remain the “hidden obvious” in the city, Soviet bigness has paradoxically vanished from people’s perceptions.  Our explanation relies on the condi-tions of the culture of memory in Moscow – shapeless, diffused and even nonexistent. We made a comparison

with Berlin’s conditions of culture of memory and its attitude towards Stalinist architecture. We discussed another strategy for dealing with her-itage and weighed its advantages and disadvantages.Finally, we created a manifesto with a proposal for how to establish these buildings in the urban culture of contemporary Moscow. Our main goal is to develop the culture of memory, as we feel that there is a cry for a one.

A symbolic building is a building that has a strong ideological message, i.e. in the design of these buildings ideol-ogy is at least as important as their functionalityDuring Stalin’s (1928-1953) adminis-tration, around 5,000 buildings were constructed in Moscow [2]. They had differed values: most of them were quite ordinary, but some of them were more important due to their ideological message. These “politically important” buildings can be divided into three categories: (1) Functional-

ity dominates over ideology, these are remarkable houses, constructed in neoclassicism style, with a light ideo-logical message; (2) Functionality is as important as ideology, and these are building-symbols, mostly constructed in empire style, due to their strong ideological message they became the symbol of the time; (3) Ideology dominates over functionality, these are very important buildings, with the strongest ideological input, made to glorify the socialist era and to compete with other countries. The seven Soviet skyscrapers fall in the third category--they are Soviet architectural attempts to represent bigness.

SyMBOlIc BuIlDINg

Methodology

Hypothesis

Marina Antsiperova and Mikhail Kozlov

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

8

10

Moscow State University building

1

“Ukraine” hotel2

House on Kotelnicheskaya

3

Foreign Ministry Affairs building

4

Building on Kudrinskaya square

5

Building on Krasnye Vorota square

6

“Leningradskaya” hotel

Northern river-boat station

VDNH main pavilion

Theatre of soviet army

Bauman MSTU

Theatre of Mossovet

“Pekin” hotel

State counsil

“Moscow” hotel

House on Mohovaya street

by Geoltovsky

House on Kosmodeni-

anovskaya emb.

House on Novinsky boulevard, 18

House on Pease avenue, 120

House on Zemlyanoy Val, 46

House under the skirt

House on T.Shevchenko emb.

House of generals (Leningradsky

avenue, 75)

House of architects (Rostovskaya emb., 5)

House on Frunzenskaya emb.,

24/1

Gorky park main entrance

House of NKVD workers

Frunze military college

People’s commissariat of military and sea

affairs

Main building of headquarters of land

forces

House on the embankment

12

7

13

14

5

TimelineMoscow’s seven Soviet skyscrapers (so called Vysotkas) were created as a very instrumental and strong tool to create a special culture of memory. In other words, they were commissioned to commemorate the Soviet period forever.

These buildings were an insepara-ble part of communist narrative of

bigness, as opposed to the big liberal narrative in the u.S. and the big narra-tive of the Nazis in germany. Vysotkas continue the line of Palace of Soviets (project declared in (1931), the result of an architectural competition with American skyscrapers and Shpeer’s palace in Berlin. The main embodi-ment of soviet greatness, the Palace of Soviets was broadly criticized  but didn’t change much and even devel-

oped a subordinate genplan of city reconstruction (1935). In 1937, the symbolical meeting of world powers happens at the Paris exhibition as the apogee of competition in bigness with the Soviet and Nazi pavilions stand-ing side by side. Soon after this, World War II begins.The post-war destiny of Palace of Soviets is not very clear–as it has never been embodied and remained only a

powerful idea that surprisingly spited in seven high-rise structures, the so-called Vysotkas.Vysotkas were created during the post-war renovation (1947) to glorify the victory, support the Palace of Soviets and symbolize the prosperous future. The mythology was unfolded even before the buildings were constructed, as it was broadcasted using all possible channels. These high-rise buildings

were said to (1) create the best lifestyle for working people, (2) reflect the greatness of socialist era and (3) pre-serve the historical roots of Moscow. After receiving Stalin’s awards in 1949, the Vysotka became very popular, very prominent, and it was supposed to appear in every uSSR city. A sort of “cult of Vysotkas” is created with the release of stamps, postcards, even step-by-step instructions for how to build a

Vysotka from snow. The mythology of the Vysotka is spread not only through-out the country, but also to the west (gDR) even in children’s games. Berlin also tried to create its own Vysotka. It appeared in first drafts in 1951, but it was never realized and, like the Palace of Soviets, it remained only a power-ful idea that was subordinated to city reconstruction. It means the internali-zation of mythology.

Vysotkas were created as a strong form of ideological communication with an appropriate design and position. As a whole, this impetus failed with a grow-ing ideological distance in the years afterwards. Khrushev’s resolution on excess in design (1955) changed completely the mythology of Moscow’s skyscraper, transforming it from the exemplary

model to the forbidden example. The Vysotka is now considered a symbol of a time that is fading - and the “Khrush-evka” becomes the symbol of moder-nity. Big narratives lose their scale not only in scope of construction - people’s minds are occupied with smaller things – like planting corn or furnishing their new apartment. However, this all takes place on the background of a man

flying to the space – as the last echo of outgoing bigness.Breshnev continues Khrushev’s trend in low-cost housing, which leads to disappointment and a kind of hatred of architecture. It seems that the technol-ogy of construction goes away com-pletely; the seven sisters are regarded as a technological miracle that can nev-er be achieved again. Positive meaning

of post-war renovation seem to render the seven sisters symbols of power that is gone.  A new wave of souvenir production (stamps, etc.)  mark a new wave of public interest in them. This is created and supported by attempts to reconsider Soviet architecture, both in literature and cinema (Paperny’s “culture 2”,1985,  Smirnov’s “Truth and honor”, 1979,  Trifonov’s “house on en-

bankment”,1976)   and in architecture--chechulin’s White House (1979).  In the global context of postmodernism, one of Vysotka’s architects revised his own project. Thus, Stalinist architec-ture is now considered an example of classical heritage.This line of reinterpretation of Sta-linist style followed in the second decade of luzhkov era. Among the

great variety of projects, appears the so-called Neostalinist style. The first forms of fake-Stalinist architecture are the Paveletskaya Plaza (2003) and the Triumph Palace (2006). Thus, the state of culture of memory is so diluted that there is no difference between the original and the fake.

“the fake-american skyscraper and a modern version of St.George kill-ing the dragon”.

19351931

1955 1979 2003 20061951

1937 1947 1949

6

TimelineMoscow’s seven Soviet skyscrapers (so called Vysotkas) were created as a very instrumental and strong tool to create a special culture of memory. In other words, they were commissioned to commemorate the Soviet period forever.

These buildings were an insepara-ble part of communist narrative of

bigness, as opposed to the big liberal narrative in the u.S. and the big narra-tive of the Nazis in germany. Vysotkas continue the line of Palace of Soviets (project declared in (1931), the result of an architectural competition with American skyscrapers and Shpeer’s palace in Berlin. The main embodi-ment of soviet greatness, the Palace of Soviets was broadly criticized  but didn’t change much and even devel-

oped a subordinate genplan of city reconstruction (1935). In 1937, the symbolical meeting of world powers happens at the Paris exhibition as the apogee of competition in bigness with the Soviet and Nazi pavilions stand-ing side by side. Soon after this, World War II begins.The post-war destiny of Palace of Soviets is not very clear–as it has never been embodied and remained only a

powerful idea that surprisingly spited in seven high-rise structures, the so-called Vysotkas.Vysotkas were created during the post-war renovation (1947) to glorify the victory, support the Palace of Soviets and symbolize the prosperous future. The mythology was unfolded even before the buildings were constructed, as it was broadcasted using all possible channels. These high-rise buildings

were said to (1) create the best lifestyle for working people, (2) reflect the greatness of socialist era and (3) pre-serve the historical roots of Moscow. After receiving Stalin’s awards in 1949, the Vysotka became very popular, very prominent, and it was supposed to appear in every uSSR city. A sort of “cult of Vysotkas” is created with the release of stamps, postcards, even step-by-step instructions for how to build a

Vysotka from snow. The mythology of the Vysotka is spread not only through-out the country, but also to the west (gDR) even in children’s games. Berlin also tried to create its own Vysotka. It appeared in first drafts in 1951, but it was never realized and, like the Palace of Soviets, it remained only a power-ful idea that was subordinated to city reconstruction. It means the internali-zation of mythology.

Vysotkas were created as a strong form of ideological communication with an appropriate design and position. As a whole, this impetus failed with a grow-ing ideological distance in the years afterwards. Khrushev’s resolution on excess in design (1955) changed completely the mythology of Moscow’s skyscraper, transforming it from the exemplary

model to the forbidden example. The Vysotka is now considered a symbol of a time that is fading - and the “Khrush-evka” becomes the symbol of moder-nity. Big narratives lose their scale not only in scope of construction - people’s minds are occupied with smaller things – like planting corn or furnishing their new apartment. However, this all takes place on the background of a man

flying to the space – as the last echo of outgoing bigness.Breshnev continues Khrushev’s trend in low-cost housing, which leads to disappointment and a kind of hatred of architecture. It seems that the technol-ogy of construction goes away com-pletely; the seven sisters are regarded as a technological miracle that can nev-er be achieved again. Positive meaning

of post-war renovation seem to render the seven sisters symbols of power that is gone.  A new wave of souvenir production (stamps, etc.)  mark a new wave of public interest in them. This is created and supported by attempts to reconsider Soviet architecture, both in literature and cinema (Paperny’s “culture 2”,1985,  Smirnov’s “Truth and honor”, 1979,  Trifonov’s “house on en-

bankment”,1976)   and in architecture--chechulin’s White House (1979).  In the global context of postmodernism, one of Vysotka’s architects revised his own project. Thus, Stalinist architec-ture is now considered an example of classical heritage.This line of reinterpretation of Sta-linist style followed in the second decade of luzhkov era. Among the

great variety of projects, appears the so-called Neostalinist style. The first forms of fake-Stalinist architecture are the Paveletskaya Plaza (2003) and the Triumph Palace (2006). Thus, the state of culture of memory is so diluted that there is no difference between the original and the fake.

“the fake-american skyscraper and a modern version of St.George kill-ing the dragon”.

19351931

1955 1979 2003 20061951

1937 1947 1949

7

In 1950s, Vysotkas were mostly dis-cussed all together, like seven sisters –only Moscow State University was discussed individually from the very beginning –it was the only building meeting the official myths as it was open to the public. As a whole, media in the 1950s broadcasted the myth created by propaganda. Vysotkas were “reflecting the greatness of socialist era”, “a symbol of progress of Soviet architecture” and “defining the image of the future Moscow”. It was very popular and bold, it was supposed to be the central part of the city forever. In modern media the building has almost lost its value as people seem to be more interested with those who live in the building than in the building itself. No universal narrative can be

found in Russian media. The most popular topics are illegal activities of its inhabitants and the review of their luxurious apartments (20% of articles), the history of famous inhabitants of the past (16%), activity of city govern-ment (cleaning/turning lights out etc – 12%), reflections in the arts or literature (12%) and some historical overviews (16%). By contrast, in foreign media out-lets a strong respected narrative can be found – Vysotkas symbolize the power that is gone but in some cases is related to the present power (12%). The Vysotka on Kotelnicheskaya is high-lighted as an indisputable landmark and the center of Taganskaya neigh-borhood (100% articles highlight this fact, 75% pay attention to its history and mythology) and a museum that you can live in–with a broader discus-sion of real estate situation in the press (25% vs. 8% in Russian media).

In our previous chapter, we highlight-ed the decline of the importance of these buildings, a growing ideological distance in communication with their cultural value going down. To study their current value and to analyze the contemporary mythology of Vysotka more precisely, we took one building, the house on the Kotel-nicheskaya embankment. It is not as close for people as the administrative buildings of FMA at the Red Gates, but it has a good location and a great num-ber of quasi-public spaces. To study its intangible and tangible value, we traced this building in media (newspa-pers, journals), cinema, and checked out real estate prices and studied the history of its public spaces.

The cinema of 1950s (“True friends”,1954 “Alyosha Ptitsin improves his personality” 1953, “In the right moment” 1956), as all the media of that time expresses the official myth that was discussed in the previous section. These films are positive and enthusi-astic, Vysotkas are shown as the main achievement of the time, the symbol of renovation and a prosperous future for everyone.  The best people live in this type of building, and thus it is a great stimulus, spurring students to enter MSU, pursue a career and then work or live in other Vysotkas. Almost nothing remains from their mythology in modern cinema, which can be divided into two groups. The first group, the “pseudo-historical films” (“Hipsters”, “The spy”) use this

building as decoration to speak about the Soviet period but differ greatly in terms of the atmosphere. The Vysotka is shown to be a close and prestigious apartment block for the nomenku-latura.  The second group of films (“Moscow I love you”, “The brigade”, “Brother 2”, “Moskow skyscraper”) mark the decline of the building more precisely and describes the current context of Vysotka as being in a state of total disorder. These films are marked by a depressed mood and demonstrate social inequality. Power is no longer related to the Vysotka, it only belongs to well-to-do people. No continuity of mythology can be found here.

In literature, the situation is nearly the same as in media and cinema, with a number of books appearing during the Soviet era (Oltargevsky, 1953 Kuleshov and Pozdnev, 1954, Bylinkin, 1951) about all the buildings and special books dedicated to MSU (Voronkov and Balashov, 1954). Since Paperny’s “Culture 2”, no serious attempts have been made in professional literature to reconsider these buildings.  Vaskin’s and Kruglov’s books seem to be just a collection of well-known facts without any special point of view. In fiction, the Vysotka on Kotelnich-eskaya embankment appears rarely as a part of historical background to tell unbelievable stories about a totally different and very vulgar world of the Soviet elite (“Moskva-kva-kva”)

or to reveal  the depressive atmos-phere inside them (“Medeya and her children”).  Serious works even by Russian au-thors (like the “Architecture of Stalin era”, Tarhanov and Kavtavradze) and foreign authors (for example, the seri-ous social study of Kotelnicheskaya inhabitants by A.Nivat) are written in English, published abroad and never translated into Russian. Thus, it seems that the foreign audience is much more interested in the Vysotkas’s culture of memory.

People seem to be more interested with the

people who live in that building than in the

building itself

Power is no more re-lated to Vysotka – only well-to-do people. No

continuity of mythology can be found here

Foreign audience is much more interested

in the subject

The Kotelnicheskaya case MEdIA

phot

o: d

mitr

y C

hist

opru

dov

CINEMA lITERATURE

8

In 1950s, Vysotkas were mostly dis-cussed all together, like seven sisters –only Moscow State University was discussed individually from the very beginning –it was the only building meeting the official myths as it was open to the public. As a whole, media in the 1950s broadcasted the myth created by propaganda. Vysotkas were “reflecting the greatness of socialist era”, “a symbol of progress of Soviet architecture” and “defining the image of the future Moscow”. It was very popular and bold, it was supposed to be the central part of the city forever. In modern media the building has almost lost its value as people seem to be more interested with those who live in the building than in the building itself. No universal narrative can be

found in Russian media. The most popular topics are illegal activities of its inhabitants and the review of their luxurious apartments (20% of articles), the history of famous inhabitants of the past (16%), activity of city govern-ment (cleaning/turning lights out etc – 12%), reflections in the arts or literature (12%) and some historical overviews (16%). By contrast, in foreign media out-lets a strong respected narrative can be found – Vysotkas symbolize the power that is gone but in some cases is related to the present power (12%). The Vysotka on Kotelnicheskaya is high-lighted as an indisputable landmark and the center of Taganskaya neigh-borhood (100% articles highlight this fact, 75% pay attention to its history and mythology) and a museum that you can live in–with a broader discus-sion of real estate situation in the press (25% vs. 8% in Russian media).

In our previous chapter, we highlight-ed the decline of the importance of these buildings, a growing ideological distance in communication with their cultural value going down. To study their current value and to analyze the contemporary mythology of Vysotka more precisely, we took one building, the house on the Kotel-nicheskaya embankment. It is not as close for people as the administrative buildings of FMA at the Red Gates, but it has a good location and a great num-ber of quasi-public spaces. To study its intangible and tangible value, we traced this building in media (newspa-pers, journals), cinema, and checked out real estate prices and studied the history of its public spaces.

The cinema of 1950s (“True friends”,1954 “Alyosha Ptitsin improves his personality” 1953, “In the right moment” 1956), as all the media of that time expresses the official myth that was discussed in the previous section. These films are positive and enthusi-astic, Vysotkas are shown as the main achievement of the time, the symbol of renovation and a prosperous future for everyone.  The best people live in this type of building, and thus it is a great stimulus, spurring students to enter MSU, pursue a career and then work or live in other Vysotkas. Almost nothing remains from their mythology in modern cinema, which can be divided into two groups. The first group, the “pseudo-historical films” (“Hipsters”, “The spy”) use this

building as decoration to speak about the Soviet period but differ greatly in terms of the atmosphere. The Vysotka is shown to be a close and prestigious apartment block for the nomenku-latura.  The second group of films (“Moscow I love you”, “The brigade”, “Brother 2”, “Moskow skyscraper”) mark the decline of the building more precisely and describes the current context of Vysotka as being in a state of total disorder. These films are marked by a depressed mood and demonstrate social inequality. Power is no longer related to the Vysotka, it only belongs to well-to-do people. No continuity of mythology can be found here.

In literature, the situation is nearly the same as in media and cinema, with a number of books appearing during the Soviet era (Oltargevsky, 1953 Kuleshov and Pozdnev, 1954, Bylinkin, 1951) about all the buildings and special books dedicated to MSU (Voronkov and Balashov, 1954). Since Paperny’s “Culture 2”, no serious attempts have been made in professional literature to reconsider these buildings.  Vaskin’s and Kruglov’s books seem to be just a collection of well-known facts without any special point of view. In fiction, the Vysotka on Kotelnich-eskaya embankment appears rarely as a part of historical background to tell unbelievable stories about a totally different and very vulgar world of the Soviet elite (“Moskva-kva-kva”)

or to reveal  the depressive atmos-phere inside them (“Medeya and her children”).  Serious works even by Russian au-thors (like the “Architecture of Stalin era”, Tarhanov and Kavtavradze) and foreign authors (for example, the seri-ous social study of Kotelnicheskaya inhabitants by A.Nivat) are written in English, published abroad and never translated into Russian. Thus, it seems that the foreign audience is much more interested in the Vysotkas’s culture of memory.

People seem to be more interested with the

people who live in that building than in the

building itself

Power is no more re-lated to Vysotka – only well-to-do people. No

continuity of mythology can be found here

Foreign audience is much more interested

in the subject

The Kotelnicheskaya case MEdIA

phot

o: d

mitr

y C

hist

opru

dov

CINEMA lITERATURE

9

While being ignored by the official city policy and city culture, Vysotkas appear in different subcultures like roofers, racers, cyclists and Vysotka lovers. Among the most remarkable ones, we picked rap-culture, roofers and cyclists.Since rap-artist Alexander dolmatov (Guf) tattooed the seven sisters on his back, the Vysotkas seem to have become an important part of Moscow’s rap culture. Guf used the image of the Vysotka to express his love for Mos-cow and at the same time to transfer a totally different culture, the Ameri-can one. dolmatov takes the part of mythology that relates to the American influence and ignores the rest. The fragmentation of mythology does not stop and the process goes on sponta-neously. While Alexey dolmatov fans

remarkable as they organize their own tours covering all seven Vysotkas (similar official excursions are rare). They engage experts and architects who tell the history of these buildings during the trip. But the interest of lo-cal is not there. People who participate in these excursions are not that inter-ested in the Vysotka so much as in the cycling. Surprisingly, foreign tourists participate in these excursions, even if they do not understand Russian and are not cycling lovers. Their interest is piqued by the Vysotkas.

wear t-shirts and stick images with Vysotkas on their cars, the images have become a trend in themselves. Cars with these stickers appear in different regions with no relation to Stalinist architecture and Guf himself, and thus pop-culture somehow helps forgetting. At the present moment, roofers are the most influential poets of Vysotka – they create an enormous interest in public with their frightening videos and photos. Some roofers are true fans of Stalinist architecture and study its history in detail. Vysotkas are the cen-tral element of urban culture for them. V. Raskalov has even copyrighted the phrase, “Moscow’s roofs for me are Vysotkas”. Among them, the Vysotka building on Kotelnicheskaya is the most popular after the one on Kudrin-skaya to roof.Cyclist culture is

know that there are 7 Vysot-kys in Moscow

know that they were con-structed to celebrate the day

of Moscow

What is your first association with seven soviet skyscrapers?

Our social survey (100 participants) showed that urban perceptions of Vy-sotkas have changed much since their establishment. People do not see them as being as relevant and significant as they did 60 years ago. Today, they are not perceived as being big (with the exception of MSU), but they have a strong relationship with Soviet big-ness (15%). The second most frequent association in people’s minds is their quality of construction (14%) while the third most common association is the Moscow of the 1950s (13%). Associa-tions with Stalin (8%), power and war (2%) are not that popular, marking the special conditions of the culture of memory. These topics are not spoken about, and it seems that they are somehow ignored. They almost vanished in people’s perceptions as it is extremely difficult for most peo-

ple to figure out what is the current meaning of Vysotkas, what they stand for today. “That’s a difficult question. I don’t know” – that’s what everybody says.  Their number and history are unknown both to Muscovites and Rus-sian tourists (only 5% know about the origin of their construction and only 45% know their exact number); foreign tourists know their narrative much better, relating it to the narrative of Soviet utopia and power.

After revealing the modern context in culture and asking people in the street we decided to study tangible changes: what happened with the public spaces and the real estate situation in the building? First, we interviewed the building’s concierge who introduces us to the building.

45%

5%

1 Bigness2 Quality of construction3 Moscow of 50-es4 Don’t know

SUBCUlTURES

SURVEy

Guf clipmaker photon-714tv broadcast

guf fans and followers motorists

SOUVENIRS, CITy POlITICS

While discussing mythology, we marked two waves of souvenir produc-tion and three big waves of public interest in these buildings: (1) after the Stalin award in 1949, (2) in the 1970s, due to their broad cultural discussion. Modern souvenir production marks a decline of interest in these buildings and is quite poor, especially in com-parison with the number of foreign souvenirs celebrating them (at ama-zon.com you can find prints and mugs with them. American designers create cloth with their images, etc.). In a rare Moscow souvenir shop, you can find a

magnet or a postcard only with MSU.All Vysotkas are monuments of regional importance, but they do not appear much in city branding. How-ever, we think that they have a great potential.  Vysotkas are not in the list of official symbols of Moscow (resolu-tion about use of city symbols, 1997[3]) with the exception of MSU, which appears in the city emblem as one of four city symbols. Excursions covering all seven sisters are rare (two to three times a year), and, in official holidays, festivals seem to cover all the city, come to every yard, with the exception of Vysotkas, where nothing happens.

Mos

cow

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

bui

ldin

g

For

eign

Min

istr

y Af

fair

s bu

ildi

ng

Hou

se o

n K

otel

nich

eska

ya e

mba

nkm

ent

Bu

ildi

ng o

n K

rasn

ye V

orot

a sq

uare

“Ukr

aine

” hot

el

Bui

ldin

g on

Kud

rins

kaya

squ

are

“Len

ingr

adsk

aya”

hot

el

foreign souvenirsMoscow souvenirs

All

10

While being ignored by the official city policy and city culture, Vysotkas appear in different subcultures like roofers, racers, cyclists and Vysotka lovers. Among the most remarkable ones, we picked rap-culture, roofers and cyclists.Since rap-artist Alexander dolmatov (Guf) tattooed the seven sisters on his back, the Vysotkas seem to have become an important part of Moscow’s rap culture. Guf used the image of the Vysotka to express his love for Mos-cow and at the same time to transfer a totally different culture, the Ameri-can one. dolmatov takes the part of mythology that relates to the American influence and ignores the rest. The fragmentation of mythology does not stop and the process goes on sponta-neously. While Alexey dolmatov fans

remarkable as they organize their own tours covering all seven Vysotkas (similar official excursions are rare). They engage experts and architects who tell the history of these buildings during the trip. But the interest of lo-cal is not there. People who participate in these excursions are not that inter-ested in the Vysotka so much as in the cycling. Surprisingly, foreign tourists participate in these excursions, even if they do not understand Russian and are not cycling lovers. Their interest is piqued by the Vysotkas.

wear t-shirts and stick images with Vysotkas on their cars, the images have become a trend in themselves. Cars with these stickers appear in different regions with no relation to Stalinist architecture and Guf himself, and thus pop-culture somehow helps forgetting. At the present moment, roofers are the most influential poets of Vysotka – they create an enormous interest in public with their frightening videos and photos. Some roofers are true fans of Stalinist architecture and study its history in detail. Vysotkas are the cen-tral element of urban culture for them. V. Raskalov has even copyrighted the phrase, “Moscow’s roofs for me are Vysotkas”. Among them, the Vysotka building on Kotelnicheskaya is the most popular after the one on Kudrin-skaya to roof.Cyclist culture is

know that there are 7 Vysot-kys in Moscow

know that they were con-structed to celebrate the day

of Moscow

What is your first association with seven soviet skyscrapers?

Our social survey (100 participants) showed that urban perceptions of Vy-sotkas have changed much since their establishment. People do not see them as being as relevant and significant as they did 60 years ago. Today, they are not perceived as being big (with the exception of MSU), but they have a strong relationship with Soviet big-ness (15%). The second most frequent association in people’s minds is their quality of construction (14%) while the third most common association is the Moscow of the 1950s (13%). Associa-tions with Stalin (8%), power and war (2%) are not that popular, marking the special conditions of the culture of memory. These topics are not spoken about, and it seems that they are somehow ignored. They almost vanished in people’s perceptions as it is extremely difficult for most peo-

ple to figure out what is the current meaning of Vysotkas, what they stand for today. “That’s a difficult question. I don’t know” – that’s what everybody says.  Their number and history are unknown both to Muscovites and Rus-sian tourists (only 5% know about the origin of their construction and only 45% know their exact number); foreign tourists know their narrative much better, relating it to the narrative of Soviet utopia and power.

After revealing the modern context in culture and asking people in the street we decided to study tangible changes: what happened with the public spaces and the real estate situation in the building? First, we interviewed the building’s concierge who introduces us to the building.

45%

5%

1 Bigness2 Quality of construction3 Moscow of 50-es4 Don’t know

SUBCUlTURES

SURVEy

Guf clipmaker photon-714tv broadcast

guf fans and followers motorists

SOUVENIRS, CITy POlITICS

While discussing mythology, we marked two waves of souvenir produc-tion and three big waves of public interest in these buildings: (1) after the Stalin award in 1949, (2) in the 1970s, due to their broad cultural discussion. Modern souvenir production marks a decline of interest in these buildings and is quite poor, especially in com-parison with the number of foreign souvenirs celebrating them (at ama-zon.com you can find prints and mugs with them. American designers create cloth with their images, etc.). In a rare Moscow souvenir shop, you can find a

magnet or a postcard only with MSU.All Vysotkas are monuments of regional importance, but they do not appear much in city branding. How-ever, we think that they have a great potential.  Vysotkas are not in the list of official symbols of Moscow (resolu-tion about use of city symbols, 1997[3]) with the exception of MSU, which appears in the city emblem as one of four city symbols. Excursions covering all seven sisters are rare (two to three times a year), and, in official holidays, festivals seem to cover all the city, come to every yard, with the exception of Vysotkas, where nothing happens.

Mos

cow

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

bui

ldin

g

For

eign

Min

istr

y Af

fair

s bu

ildi

ng

Hou

se o

n K

otel

nich

eska

ya e

mba

nkm

ent

Bu

ildi

ng o

n K

rasn

ye V

orot

a sq

uare

“Ukr

aine

” hot

el

Bui

ldin

g on

Kud

rins

kaya

squ

are

“Len

ingr

adsk

aya”

hot

el

foreign souvenirsMoscow souvenirs

All

11

Krasnye vorota

Kotelnicheskaya nab, 1\15

59.3

62.0 65.000

63.0

60.0

59.0

60.0

68.300

67.300

65.000

66.000

81.000

location area (m2) price ( )

Syharevskaya

Borovitskaya

Tsvetnoy Bl.

Chehovskaya

“There are very few restau-rants with Marocanian kitchen in Moscow. Today it’s difficult to talk about any uniqueness in Moscow, but we do our best. <…> we chose this place because we were satisfied with quality-price ratio, location and intrigued by famous inhabitants. We tried to preserve the interior and did only cosmetic reno-vation.”

“Unique people lived here – and we will create a different world for unique people. We will play up the uniqueness of this location. We will preserve every wall crack. <…>The renting price was not high, comparable to sta-ble price in the city center.”

“We are going to preserve the uniqueness of the place, so it will survive the renovation with a minimum changes <…> We don’t pay rent as we are a government financing structure ”

Maria, 25,

administrator at “Illusion” cinema

Evgeny, 25,

chief cook and co-owner of “Vysotka” bar

Maria, 35,

assistant director at “Marocana”

restaurantIn the 1950s, the building seemed to be a whole universe with a unique com-position of bookshop, cinema, bakery, two big provisions shops, pharmacy, laundry, post office, telegraph and the biggest atelier № 1 in Moscow. As these shops were open for everyone and all the neighborhood gathered there early in the morning to buy fresh bread, it was a famous bakery until it was closed in the 2000s. A part of the building was a hotel, and thus open to everyone (or just declared to be open).Today nearly all of them are closed with the exception of cinema “Illu-sion”, the post office and the big provi-sions shop. The public space consists today of three banks, a hairdressing salon instead of a bookshop, the Maro-cana restaurant instead of a pharmacy and a big furniture shop instead of an atelier. The atelier and pharmacy are still there but occupy a small space in the yard. Even in those quasi-public spaces that survived from the soviet time, culture of memory is not there as the tenants do not preserve the at-mosphere of that time. Only ceilings, molding and some small details like Soviet posters at “Illusion” or the mail box in the post office are preserved. However, the spirit is far more away in the new banks and restaurants that consciously change the atmosphere completely–like the restaurant Maro-cana that tries to create a spirit of 1001 nights in the Stalinist heritage. To understand the origins of this pro-cess, we conducted several interviews with tenants, such as the restaurant Marocana, cinema “Illusion” and a bar called Vysotka that has yet to open. All of them highlight the uniqueness of building and uniqueness of its in-habitants – the target audience – and do their best to create a unique public space like the Arabic café or a unique gourmet bar. However, their attempts are not successful. In sum, they create a nonspecific set that could appear anywhere in modern Moscow – with exotic cuisine, good bar, network banks and hairdressing.

According to the concierge, the Kotelnicheskaya building has sur-vived many interior change. Today, the apartments are mostly rented, and their inhabitants are constantly changing. Thus, the Kotelnicheskaya building seems to have been trans-formed into a kind of hotel with a flexible interior. The first thing that new tenants do is refurbishment. Con-cierges are not able even to remember all the inhabitants – what remains in their memories are moldings and door handles thrown out. With this constant change, inhabitants do not form a community any more. The yard that was once used for meetings and festivals is now in disorder.The building was designed to be a closed, autonomous space and some-how it is still independent in its infra-structure. It still houses the council of veterans, passport management, its own renovation service, utilities and

a children’s room. But some services of the building are open to everyone, like the children’s room, as they are commercial. Concierges mark a new wave of inter-est in Vysotkas that began two years ago and has a link to the roofers’ sub-culture. A 70-year-old lady knows the English word “roofer” because every

day she catches someone attempting to climb the building. Today roofers seem to show the strongest interest in the Vysotka. Another group interested in the subject are foreign tourists that come in crowds to see the building and try to get inside, especially in the summertime. Compared to foreigners, locals’ interest is indisputably low.

PUBlIC SPACE CONSIERGE INTERVIEW

All of the tenants noticed the surpris-ing fact that the rental price is not high and nearly the same as every-where else in center. Realtor agencies assess the price as $3000-4500 per square meter, that’s “not that much as the houses stand in the very center of Moscow” [4]. Renting is also quite cheap and comparable with apart-ments situated far away from the center– with 55,000 rubles per month for a 2-bedroom apartment. Apart-ments are even rented out by the day. due to this financial policy, residents do not stay for a long time, and the Vysotka becomes a kind of hotel where inhabitants are constantly changing. Rich inhabitants are fighting against this phenomenon with attempts to create their own TSG that will help them to transform this place in a more luxurious, close and unique.

REAl ESTATE RENTING PRICE FOR 2 ROOMS APARTMENT IN dIFFIRENT AREAS (AVER-

AGE MINIMUM)

phot

o: V

italy

Ras

kalo

v

12

Krasnye vorota

Kotelnicheskaya nab, 1\15

59.3

62.0 65.000

63.0

60.0

59.0

60.0

68.300

67.300

65.000

66.000

81.000

location area (m2) price ( )

Syharevskaya

Borovitskaya

Tsvetnoy Bl.

Chehovskaya

“There are very few restau-rants with Marocanian kitchen in Moscow. Today it’s difficult to talk about any uniqueness in Moscow, but we do our best. <…> we chose this place because we were satisfied with quality-price ratio, location and intrigued by famous inhabitants. We tried to preserve the interior and did only cosmetic reno-vation.”

“Unique people lived here – and we will create a different world for unique people. We will play up the uniqueness of this location. We will preserve every wall crack. <…>The renting price was not high, comparable to sta-ble price in the city center.”

“We are going to preserve the uniqueness of the place, so it will survive the renovation with a minimum changes <…> We don’t pay rent as we are a government financing structure ”

Maria, 25,

administrator at “Illusion” cinema

Evgeny, 25,

chief cook and co-owner of “Vysotka” bar

Maria, 35,

assistant director at “Marocana”

restaurantIn the 1950s, the building seemed to be a whole universe with a unique com-position of bookshop, cinema, bakery, two big provisions shops, pharmacy, laundry, post office, telegraph and the biggest atelier № 1 in Moscow. As these shops were open for everyone and all the neighborhood gathered there early in the morning to buy fresh bread, it was a famous bakery until it was closed in the 2000s. A part of the building was a hotel, and thus open to everyone (or just declared to be open).Today nearly all of them are closed with the exception of cinema “Illu-sion”, the post office and the big provi-sions shop. The public space consists today of three banks, a hairdressing salon instead of a bookshop, the Maro-cana restaurant instead of a pharmacy and a big furniture shop instead of an atelier. The atelier and pharmacy are still there but occupy a small space in the yard. Even in those quasi-public spaces that survived from the soviet time, culture of memory is not there as the tenants do not preserve the at-mosphere of that time. Only ceilings, molding and some small details like Soviet posters at “Illusion” or the mail box in the post office are preserved. However, the spirit is far more away in the new banks and restaurants that consciously change the atmosphere completely–like the restaurant Maro-cana that tries to create a spirit of 1001 nights in the Stalinist heritage. To understand the origins of this pro-cess, we conducted several interviews with tenants, such as the restaurant Marocana, cinema “Illusion” and a bar called Vysotka that has yet to open. All of them highlight the uniqueness of building and uniqueness of its in-habitants – the target audience – and do their best to create a unique public space like the Arabic café or a unique gourmet bar. However, their attempts are not successful. In sum, they create a nonspecific set that could appear anywhere in modern Moscow – with exotic cuisine, good bar, network banks and hairdressing.

According to the concierge, the Kotelnicheskaya building has sur-vived many interior change. Today, the apartments are mostly rented, and their inhabitants are constantly changing. Thus, the Kotelnicheskaya building seems to have been trans-formed into a kind of hotel with a flexible interior. The first thing that new tenants do is refurbishment. Con-cierges are not able even to remember all the inhabitants – what remains in their memories are moldings and door handles thrown out. With this constant change, inhabitants do not form a community any more. The yard that was once used for meetings and festivals is now in disorder.The building was designed to be a closed, autonomous space and some-how it is still independent in its infra-structure. It still houses the council of veterans, passport management, its own renovation service, utilities and

a children’s room. But some services of the building are open to everyone, like the children’s room, as they are commercial. Concierges mark a new wave of inter-est in Vysotkas that began two years ago and has a link to the roofers’ sub-culture. A 70-year-old lady knows the English word “roofer” because every

day she catches someone attempting to climb the building. Today roofers seem to show the strongest interest in the Vysotka. Another group interested in the subject are foreign tourists that come in crowds to see the building and try to get inside, especially in the summertime. Compared to foreigners, locals’ interest is indisputably low.

PUBlIC SPACE CONSIERGE INTERVIEW

All of the tenants noticed the surpris-ing fact that the rental price is not high and nearly the same as every-where else in center. Realtor agencies assess the price as $3000-4500 per square meter, that’s “not that much as the houses stand in the very center of Moscow” [4]. Renting is also quite cheap and comparable with apart-ments situated far away from the center– with 55,000 rubles per month for a 2-bedroom apartment. Apart-ments are even rented out by the day. due to this financial policy, residents do not stay for a long time, and the Vysotka becomes a kind of hotel where inhabitants are constantly changing. Rich inhabitants are fighting against this phenomenon with attempts to create their own TSG that will help them to transform this place in a more luxurious, close and unique.

REAl ESTATE RENTING PRICE FOR 2 ROOMS APARTMENT IN dIFFIRENT AREAS (AVER-

AGE MINIMUM)

phot

o: V

italy

Ras

kalo

v

13

Since the creation of Vysotkas, the skyline of Moscow has significantly changed in line with changes in the density of buildings. The only Vysotka that survived with a minimum of changes is the MSU building, but MSU had a special destiny since the very beginning. It was a unique skyscraper-university with perfect infrastructure, designed for the general public with excursions organized, and finally it was the highest building in Moscow. Today MSU maintains its special situation due to its good location and infrastructure and appears frequently in city branding and souvenir produc-tion.  Thus, Vysotkas are not coherent any-more, they have split into seven enti-ties, each with its own fate in people’s perceptions. Among them, some are more prominent – like MSU. The Min-istry of Foreign Affairs is also quite

powerful due to its strong institutional appearance. Two of the Vysotkas were transformed into European-standard hotels, which more or less pay respect to the original façade and interior. Three are residential buildings, and their destiny in somehow similar to the Kotelnicheskaya’s.The Vysotka on Kotelnicheskaya em-bankment does not seem to have any special distinction in people’s minds. In the 1950s, it was very special and popular, but this has almost faded out by today. It became quite acces-sible as rent price is nearly the same as in every building in city center. Inhabitants are constantly changing and well-to-do people are the most interesting part of the building today. It almost vanished as a central part of urban culture in Moscow. The building does not appear as a landmark in city branding and only subculture show in-

terest in it. Roofers study its history in detail, cyclists organize guided tours, rap-artists broadcast their mythology to the hinterlands of Russia. Only in subculture can we find any continu-ity (even fragmented) of mythology in these buildings. No universal narrative can be found in modern culture and as a whole they have no strong relation to present time. They somehow disap-peared from people’s perceptions and knowledge.The situation with foreigners is the opposite: Vysotkas are an indisput-able landmark that appear in most TV broadcasts on the city as a symbol of Moscow. Foreigners celebrate these buildings with books and films, dream of living there and relate them to a political narrative of the power, both in the present and past – which seems to be “forgotten” by Muscovites.

Conclusions

Culture of memory is a social agree-ment on how the past should be remembered. It dictates the global narrative and selects details that are to be remembered or forgotten. As with individual memory forgotten facts are a field to investigate as they can be the symptom of cultural disease. As a whole and especially in com-parison with Berlin’s, the condition of Moscow’s culture of memory are very poor. There were no serious public discussions about the Soviet years and no agreement on how modern Rus-sian society treats it.[6] The Soviet era was a time of big narratives and big achievements but at the same time big losses, and the most contradictory fig-ure of the Soviet past remains Stalin. In social surveys, anywhere from 20 to 40%[7] cannot choose between positive or negative meaning for almost all the events that happened during his government.

In this context, Vysotkas become a dangerous symbol for the government to use and a difficult object for society as there has been no decision on what these objects stand for. For this rea-son, it is much easier to leave them in

peace and not touch them, somehow ignore them, and they become a kind of hidden yet obvious landmark in the city that disappeared in a shapeless culture of memory.

frag

men

tatio

n of

myt

holo

gy

cons

erva

tion

of m

ytho

logy

To understand this phenomenon we decided to compare it to the destiny of Stalin heritage abroad. We took Berlin as an example as the topic of culture of memory is broadly discussed there and is a big issue in city branding.  A Vysotka has never been realized in Berlin, and it appeared only in drafts and plans, so to make a fair com-parison of cloud of meanings we had to choose another object.  We took Karl-Marx allee, the main event of the Soviet period in Berlin, where the majority of Stalinist architecture is situated. This area is perceived as a unique object that cannot be compared with anything else in Germany. Thus, Karl-Marx allee is carefully preserved in Berlin – in every small part and as a whole architectural structure. Cafes create museums of these spaces and gather objects from different time to preserve the atmosphere. In apartments, even the bathroom tile is preserved. The history is preserved as well, and the whole area is covered

with information desks. We call the last situation the conservation of myth.

In comparison with the Nazi repres-sions, the topography of communist terror is not so carefully worked out as all East Berlin (and East Germany as a whole) is considered to be a “big con-centration camp” or “victimhood’.[5] As seen in the example of the Palace de

Republic, the destiny of soviet heritage remains a burning issue and reveals broad discussions. Karl-Marx allee is carefully preserved but it should be understood that its role in the urban culture of the city changed much as in the case of Vysotkas. Today, it remains just a prestigious living area for a close-knit community of connoisseurs. A similar process happens here: particular destruction and strange public spaces with ethnic cuisine on the ground floors. As well as the Vysotkas, Karl-Marx allee seem to lose any relation with present time, thus representing only a time that is gone forever.In both cases, Moscow and Berlin, Soviet architecture seems to be in a kind of metaphorical decay. The main difference between Moscow and Ber-lin lies in the different kind of culture of memory. In Berlin, the society decided what they stand for and what is their current meaning. However, in attempts to preserve it, Berlin turned this alley into a kind of lifeless monu-ment commemorating a not-so-simple time that is gone forever.

The Berlin case

Culture of memory

14

Since the creation of Vysotkas, the skyline of Moscow has significantly changed in line with changes in the density of buildings. The only Vysotka that survived with a minimum of changes is the MSU building, but MSU had a special destiny since the very beginning. It was a unique skyscraper-university with perfect infrastructure, designed for the general public with excursions organized, and finally it was the highest building in Moscow. Today MSU maintains its special situation due to its good location and infrastructure and appears frequently in city branding and souvenir produc-tion.  Thus, Vysotkas are not coherent any-more, they have split into seven enti-ties, each with its own fate in people’s perceptions. Among them, some are more prominent – like MSU. The Min-istry of Foreign Affairs is also quite

powerful due to its strong institutional appearance. Two of the Vysotkas were transformed into European-standard hotels, which more or less pay respect to the original façade and interior. Three are residential buildings, and their destiny in somehow similar to the Kotelnicheskaya’s.The Vysotka on Kotelnicheskaya em-bankment does not seem to have any special distinction in people’s minds. In the 1950s, it was very special and popular, but this has almost faded out by today. It became quite acces-sible as rent price is nearly the same as in every building in city center. Inhabitants are constantly changing and well-to-do people are the most interesting part of the building today. It almost vanished as a central part of urban culture in Moscow. The building does not appear as a landmark in city branding and only subculture show in-

terest in it. Roofers study its history in detail, cyclists organize guided tours, rap-artists broadcast their mythology to the hinterlands of Russia. Only in subculture can we find any continu-ity (even fragmented) of mythology in these buildings. No universal narrative can be found in modern culture and as a whole they have no strong relation to present time. They somehow disap-peared from people’s perceptions and knowledge.The situation with foreigners is the opposite: Vysotkas are an indisput-able landmark that appear in most TV broadcasts on the city as a symbol of Moscow. Foreigners celebrate these buildings with books and films, dream of living there and relate them to a political narrative of the power, both in the present and past – which seems to be “forgotten” by Muscovites.

Conclusions

Culture of memory is a social agree-ment on how the past should be remembered. It dictates the global narrative and selects details that are to be remembered or forgotten. As with individual memory forgotten facts are a field to investigate as they can be the symptom of cultural disease. As a whole and especially in com-parison with Berlin’s, the condition of Moscow’s culture of memory are very poor. There were no serious public discussions about the Soviet years and no agreement on how modern Rus-sian society treats it.[6] The Soviet era was a time of big narratives and big achievements but at the same time big losses, and the most contradictory fig-ure of the Soviet past remains Stalin. In social surveys, anywhere from 20 to 40%[7] cannot choose between positive or negative meaning for almost all the events that happened during his government.

In this context, Vysotkas become a dangerous symbol for the government to use and a difficult object for society as there has been no decision on what these objects stand for. For this rea-son, it is much easier to leave them in

peace and not touch them, somehow ignore them, and they become a kind of hidden yet obvious landmark in the city that disappeared in a shapeless culture of memory.

frag

men

tatio

n of

myt

holo

gy

cons

erva

tion

of m

ytho

logy

To understand this phenomenon we decided to compare it to the destiny of Stalin heritage abroad. We took Berlin as an example as the topic of culture of memory is broadly discussed there and is a big issue in city branding.  A Vysotka has never been realized in Berlin, and it appeared only in drafts and plans, so to make a fair com-parison of cloud of meanings we had to choose another object.  We took Karl-Marx allee, the main event of the Soviet period in Berlin, where the majority of Stalinist architecture is situated. This area is perceived as a unique object that cannot be compared with anything else in Germany. Thus, Karl-Marx allee is carefully preserved in Berlin – in every small part and as a whole architectural structure. Cafes create museums of these spaces and gather objects from different time to preserve the atmosphere. In apartments, even the bathroom tile is preserved. The history is preserved as well, and the whole area is covered

with information desks. We call the last situation the conservation of myth.

In comparison with the Nazi repres-sions, the topography of communist terror is not so carefully worked out as all East Berlin (and East Germany as a whole) is considered to be a “big con-centration camp” or “victimhood’.[5] As seen in the example of the Palace de

Republic, the destiny of soviet heritage remains a burning issue and reveals broad discussions. Karl-Marx allee is carefully preserved but it should be understood that its role in the urban culture of the city changed much as in the case of Vysotkas. Today, it remains just a prestigious living area for a close-knit community of connoisseurs. A similar process happens here: particular destruction and strange public spaces with ethnic cuisine on the ground floors. As well as the Vysotkas, Karl-Marx allee seem to lose any relation with present time, thus representing only a time that is gone forever.In both cases, Moscow and Berlin, Soviet architecture seems to be in a kind of metaphorical decay. The main difference between Moscow and Ber-lin lies in the different kind of culture of memory. In Berlin, the society decided what they stand for and what is their current meaning. However, in attempts to preserve it, Berlin turned this alley into a kind of lifeless monu-ment commemorating a not-so-simple time that is gone forever.

The Berlin case

Culture of memory

15

In our research, we questioned the value of the seven Soviet skyscrapers as a part of current culture of memory. The concept of culture of memory in the Vysotka has been diluted over time and today it has disappeared almost entirely. The rela-tionship of today is awake: some people support it, others do not, official authori-ties do not want to be proactively connected to it anymore as it is a dangerous symbol to use. Our intention is to change the situation, i.e. to reconsider the value of these build-ings as a part of new culture of memory that we want to develop. Developing the culture of memory is a two-sided problem: on the one hand, you have to deal with the past, on the other hand, you have to look to the future. We do not want to fix  the seven sisters more in the past and make them a symbol of the Soviet time reconsideration despite the fact that they seem to be easily used in this way.  At the same time, in attempts to put them in a modern context it is easy to ignore their complex and problematic mythology.We found a two-step solution: 1. Use the day of the city as a tool to bring them into the focus of attention. This holiday was created by Stalin to explain the necessity of their foundation (800 years – eight skyscrapers) and didn’t exist before the official resolution on high-rise building.[8] Very few people know about this fact, only 5% of our respondents. This day can be used in different ways to celebrate these buildings. For example, to make them more open to public.2. To touch a more serious problem, a problem of memory, we decided to write (or to broadcast in any other way – exhibitions, excursions) seven or more stories that would tell each story. This would be a different point of view, a different story, a different myth about these buildings (like American influence, Russian identity, terror contexts, luxuries in architecture, etc.). Being contradictory, these stories will show different ways to perceive this complex object, thus representing the complex cloud of meaning around this building. These stories will thus affirm the current state of culture of memory in which there is no consensus on the way to remember the past and different stories, myths, and points of view coexist.

Manifesto: a proposal for a change

[1] R.Barthes. Mythologies. Moscow: Academic project, 2010, page 130 ISBN 978-5-8291-1239-4; [2] MARHI graduates (scientific advisors U. Grygoryan et al) Old Moscow. Inventarisa-tion.2011 pages 8-9[3] Resolution of Mayor of Moscow from  26.11.97  N  925-PM  “About  the use  of moscow city symbol in trade names and properties of juristic persons” [4] Realtor overviews. “Stalin Vysotky – elite housing is no more that special” http://www.reline.ru/msk/analitika/vtor/75.html[5] U. Staiger et al. Memory Culture and the Contemporary City. Palgrave Macmillan,2009. pages 161-181 ISBN 978-0-230-57665-0;.[6] A.Roginsky. “Memory about stalinism”. Conference “History of stalinism” organized by Memorial. Moscow, 2008.   http://www.polit.ru/article/2008/12/11/memory/ [7] Social surveys by Levada-center. Annual report , 2010 http://www.levada.ru/books/obshchestvennoe-mnenie-2010[8] Documentary photos http://retrofonoteka.ru/skyscrapers/moscow_skyscrapers_3.htm

N.Dushkina (historian of architecture, expert in preservation)M.Hrustaleva (art historian, expert in preservation)A.Muratov (culture expert)Ph.Moiser (architect, curator, expert in comparative studies of Moscow-Berlin influence in architecture)Ph.Osvald (architect, head of Bauhaus, expert in preservation)Vl.Paperny (architect, culture expert)A.Polakova (daughter of architect Polakov) Gr.Revzin (art historian, architecture critic)D.Romodin (student of local history, art historian)A.Sumatohin (architect, resident of Vysotka on Kotelnichexkaya embankment)Vl,Velikanov (philosopher, artist)

J.Assmann. Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies (Cultural Memory in the Present). Stan-ford University Press, 2005 ISBN-13: 978-0804745239N.Dushkina. Live of architect Dushkin 1904-1977. Moscow: A-fond, 2004 ISBN 5-9900247-1-1C.Flood. Political myth. Moscow: Progress-tradition, 2004. ISBN 5-89826-164-8L.Gudkov. Memory of the war and collective identity of Russians. Moscow: Reserve fund, 2-3(pages 40-41) ISBN 5-86793-053-xN.Krugkov. High rise buildings of stalin’s Moscow. Moscow: Vodoley, 2011. ISBN 978-5-91763-063-2A.Morozov. End of utopia. Moscow: Galart, 1995. ISBN 50269-00902-1P.Muller. Counter-Architecture and buiding race: cold war politics and the two Berlins. Bulletin of German Historical Institute, Washington D.C., 2005 ISBN: 1048-9134A.Nivat. La maison haute. Fayard, 2002 ISBN-13: 978-2213613147P.Nora. France-memory. Saint-Peterburg university press, 1999. ISBN 5-288-02318-2Vl.Paperny. Architecture in the Age of Stalin: Culture Two. Cambridge, 2011 ISBN-13: 978-0521292603 A.Polyakova. Architect L.M.Polyakov. Moscow: University press, 2008U. Staiger. Memory Culture and the Contemporary City. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009 ISBN 978-0-230-57665-0Sotsrealistic canon: collection of articles. Moscow, 2000 ISBN 5-7331-0192-XA.Vaskin. Stalin skyscrapers. Moscow: Sputnik+, 2011 ISBN 978-5-9973-1300-5V.Velikanov. Am I simulacrum or do I have rights?. Moscow: New literal review, 2007 ISBN 978-5-86793-545-0

REFERENCES:

EXPERTS:

LITERATURE:

16

In our research, we questioned the value of the seven Soviet skyscrapers as a part of current culture of memory. The concept of culture of memory in the Vysotka has been diluted over time and today it has disappeared almost entirely. The rela-tionship of today is awake: some people support it, others do not, official authori-ties do not want to be proactively connected to it anymore as it is a dangerous symbol to use. Our intention is to change the situation, i.e. to reconsider the value of these build-ings as a part of new culture of memory that we want to develop. Developing the culture of memory is a two-sided problem: on the one hand, you have to deal with the past, on the other hand, you have to look to the future. We do not want to fix  the seven sisters more in the past and make them a symbol of the Soviet time reconsideration despite the fact that they seem to be easily used in this way.  At the same time, in attempts to put them in a modern context it is easy to ignore their complex and problematic mythology.We found a two-step solution: 1. Use the day of the city as a tool to bring them into the focus of attention. This holiday was created by Stalin to explain the necessity of their foundation (800 years – eight skyscrapers) and didn’t exist before the official resolution on high-rise building.[8] Very few people know about this fact, only 5% of our respondents. This day can be used in different ways to celebrate these buildings. For example, to make them more open to public.2. To touch a more serious problem, a problem of memory, we decided to write (or to broadcast in any other way – exhibitions, excursions) seven or more stories that would tell each story. This would be a different point of view, a different story, a different myth about these buildings (like American influence, Russian identity, terror contexts, luxuries in architecture, etc.). Being contradictory, these stories will show different ways to perceive this complex object, thus representing the complex cloud of meaning around this building. These stories will thus affirm the current state of culture of memory in which there is no consensus on the way to remember the past and different stories, myths, and points of view coexist.

Manifesto: a proposal for a change

[1] R.Barthes. Mythologies. Moscow: Academic project, 2010, page 130 ISBN 978-5-8291-1239-4; [2] MARHI graduates (scientific advisors U. Grygoryan et al) Old Moscow. Inventarisa-tion.2011 pages 8-9[3] Resolution of Mayor of Moscow from  26.11.97  N  925-PM  “About  the use  of moscow city symbol in trade names and properties of juristic persons” [4] Realtor overviews. “Stalin Vysotky – elite housing is no more that special” http://www.reline.ru/msk/analitika/vtor/75.html[5] U. Staiger et al. Memory Culture and the Contemporary City. Palgrave Macmillan,2009. pages 161-181 ISBN 978-0-230-57665-0;.[6] A.Roginsky. “Memory about stalinism”. Conference “History of stalinism” organized by Memorial. Moscow, 2008.   http://www.polit.ru/article/2008/12/11/memory/ [7] Social surveys by Levada-center. Annual report , 2010 http://www.levada.ru/books/obshchestvennoe-mnenie-2010[8] Documentary photos http://retrofonoteka.ru/skyscrapers/moscow_skyscrapers_3.htm

N.Dushkina (historian of architecture, expert in preservation)M.Hrustaleva (art historian, expert in preservation)A.Muratov (culture expert)Ph.Moiser (architect, curator, expert in comparative studies of Moscow-Berlin influence in architecture)Ph.Osvald (architect, head of Bauhaus, expert in preservation)Vl.Paperny (architect, culture expert)A.Polakova (daughter of architect Polakov) Gr.Revzin (art historian, architecture critic)D.Romodin (student of local history, art historian)A.Sumatohin (architect, resident of Vysotka on Kotelnichexkaya embankment)Vl,Velikanov (philosopher, artist)

J.Assmann. Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies (Cultural Memory in the Present). Stan-ford University Press, 2005 ISBN-13: 978-0804745239N.Dushkina. Live of architect Dushkin 1904-1977. Moscow: A-fond, 2004 ISBN 5-9900247-1-1C.Flood. Political myth. Moscow: Progress-tradition, 2004. ISBN 5-89826-164-8L.Gudkov. Memory of the war and collective identity of Russians. Moscow: Reserve fund, 2-3(pages 40-41) ISBN 5-86793-053-xN.Krugkov. High rise buildings of stalin’s Moscow. Moscow: Vodoley, 2011. ISBN 978-5-91763-063-2A.Morozov. End of utopia. Moscow: Galart, 1995. ISBN 50269-00902-1P.Muller. Counter-Architecture and buiding race: cold war politics and the two Berlins. Bulletin of German Historical Institute, Washington D.C., 2005 ISBN: 1048-9134A.Nivat. La maison haute. Fayard, 2002 ISBN-13: 978-2213613147P.Nora. France-memory. Saint-Peterburg university press, 1999. ISBN 5-288-02318-2Vl.Paperny. Architecture in the Age of Stalin: Culture Two. Cambridge, 2011 ISBN-13: 978-0521292603 A.Polyakova. Architect L.M.Polyakov. Moscow: University press, 2008U. Staiger. Memory Culture and the Contemporary City. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009 ISBN 978-0-230-57665-0Sotsrealistic canon: collection of articles. Moscow, 2000 ISBN 5-7331-0192-XA.Vaskin. Stalin skyscrapers. Moscow: Sputnik+, 2011 ISBN 978-5-9973-1300-5V.Velikanov. Am I simulacrum or do I have rights?. Moscow: New literal review, 2007 ISBN 978-5-86793-545-0

REFERENCES:

EXPERTS:

LITERATURE:

17

Art as a Socio-cultural Interface for the Urban EnvironmentElena Dendiberya

Hypothesis

Youth is power and energy. Using all the advantages of youth, the new artists generation in Moscow can be considered an asset for society and agents of change. Using their practices, the new artists generation is forming the inter-face for modern urban life, acting not only on a global scale and dealing with issues that are sometimes abstract, but also on a very local level, promoting micro social changes, creating different types of communication, interaction and activity within the limits of a particular area, issue or community.

Abstract

Flowing from the fact that contemporary art mirrors the political and social attitudes of society, the young artists generation in Moscow can be consid-ered an asset for society, not only for the potential medium, but also as agents of change. Using their practices, this generation is forming an interface for modern urban society, reflecting the problems and hidden aspects of public life. Young artists are the most sensitive to transformations in society. They have nothing to lose and they are ready to react immediately, acting in a world where it is more and more difficult to distinguish production and consump-tion, skills and dilettantism, truth and simulation. This is a world where it is important to always be ready to experiment in response to the sudden change of time. Using a database, which was created for this research, I studied the practices, strategies and backgrounds of young artists in Moscow. At the same time, I examined how interest in their activities is represented by the govern-ment and private organizations. During the course of my research, I came to understand that the potential of young artists is underestimated by the city, but, at the same time, the problems which they are working with in many cases have a very important social character. It is important to emphasize that global issues dominate in the artists' works when compared with local issues, fulfilling only the first part of the aphorism: think global, act local. This work features a model art project on a local level (the Izmailovo district) dealing with the issues of society atomization, lack of horizontal networks and human estrangement.

18

Art as a Socio-cultural Interface for the Urban EnvironmentElena Dendiberya

Hypothesis

Youth is power and energy. Using all the advantages of youth, the new artists generation in Moscow can be considered an asset for society and agents of change. Using their practices, the new artists generation is forming the inter-face for modern urban life, acting not only on a global scale and dealing with issues that are sometimes abstract, but also on a very local level, promoting micro social changes, creating different types of communication, interaction and activity within the limits of a particular area, issue or community.

Abstract

Flowing from the fact that contemporary art mirrors the political and social attitudes of society, the young artists generation in Moscow can be consid-ered an asset for society, not only for the potential medium, but also as agents of change. Using their practices, this generation is forming an interface for modern urban society, reflecting the problems and hidden aspects of public life. Young artists are the most sensitive to transformations in society. They have nothing to lose and they are ready to react immediately, acting in a world where it is more and more difficult to distinguish production and consump-tion, skills and dilettantism, truth and simulation. This is a world where it is important to always be ready to experiment in response to the sudden change of time. Using a database, which was created for this research, I studied the practices, strategies and backgrounds of young artists in Moscow. At the same time, I examined how interest in their activities is represented by the govern-ment and private organizations. During the course of my research, I came to understand that the potential of young artists is underestimated by the city, but, at the same time, the problems which they are working with in many cases have a very important social character. It is important to emphasize that global issues dominate in the artists' works when compared with local issues, fulfilling only the first part of the aphorism: think global, act local. This work features a model art project on a local level (the Izmailovo district) dealing with the issues of society atomization, lack of horizontal networks and human estrangement.

19

The Concept of Youth in mass culture:

The cult of youth was a common occurrence in the 1960s, becoming one of the founding myths of modern mass culture. Today, youth is celebrated by the mass media like never before. The capitalist culture of youth contains its own demise. Just like Neverlanders, the residents of the fairytale country who refused to grow up and were stuck in eternal childhood, the new generation is stuck in an eternal youth condition. This condition is a logical response to the replacement of the traditional family by the nuclear family, women's emancipation and the appearance of a new social value system. Each year the value of youth increases with its rarity, and the spread of the cult of youth has already resulted in a shift in the maturity age approximately from 25 to 40 years as a result. The cult of youth is a very comfortable tool used by mass culture for the promotion of hedonistic consumption and a fertile area for investment, which takes into account the gradual reduction of youth in Western society.

Youth is a symbol of social modernization. A social accumulator and a capacitor of the transformations, this process is always gradual (day after day, year after year), and therefore invisible to the general society. These transformations occur in the depths of social life, escaping the attention of the majority, bringing critical views and attitudes toward existing reality, new ideas and energy, which is especially needed at the time of radical reform. Youth has a dual nature: on the one hand it is a power, able to actively create something new, and at the same time it possesses "explosive" and destructive material.

For a city:

Top-down: City policy aimed to support young generation activities

is forming particular atmosphere, spirit or city brand, which mostly plays reputational role in further development and tourist’s attractiveness. Example: city policy of Berlin, which made it third city in Europe according to the number of tourists.

Bottom-up: Initiatives created by youth themselves, which could attract investment support. The regular spotting of some subcultures in particular places attracts investors to construct proper infrastructure and environment.

In terms of art:

Young artists by themselves are unique individuals. They do not require a lot and are even satisfied by less. Filled with great enthusiasm, they are ready to work almost for free in order to develop certain name recognition and be given an opportunity to integrate themselves into the art system. The fact that artists at the first steps of their careers do not require big investments breeds desire to use them as a tool for the promotion of different business ideas. For example, they can be used to attract attention to some developing territory (Project ArtHouse ArtSquat).The “young artists” term became a trend in Russia in late 80s right before the collapse of USSR in time of its agony. This time was characterized by appearance of numerous abandoned places in the very center of Moscow, which in turn were occupied, i.e. squatted in, by the new generation of artists. Those places were considered the main locations of underground culture in Moscow, which became more and more tangible together with the destruction of the system and chaos in the country. The phenomenon of “youth” in terms of art is expressed in constant renewal, in the inflow of new, fresh blood. In recent years, we can see an interesting phenomenon: artists are taking part in manifestations, and activists come to galleries, erasing the

The Concept of Youth (Value) as a Catalyst for Economic and Social Processes.

In Moscow the phenomenon of the young or emerging artist appears because of a lack of support and because of a desire to oppose the established system.

boundaries between art and protest or social activity. Artists are putting protest into the sphere of art and art into the sphere of protest, attracting and bringing an audience, which remains behind them. Contemporary art for them is an additional resource for the expression of ideas. The artistic environment today is more than ever in need of fresh blood. This so-called fresh blood is a new generation. Despite all the disadvantages and the impoverished condition of young artists in Russia, more and more young people want to be artists, accepting rules of disjunct mechanism of Russian art system.

Two dimensions of the “young or emerging artist” definition:

1)Social dimension.

Young artist is a very comfortable term, which replaced entire segments of infrastructure. This is a special social status, which does not require being someone in a professional sense; this status gives the bearer the opportunity to hold it for a long period of time without any development. Furthermore, much depends on the situation of governmental support. In Berlin, where the city's policy is oriented toward support and investment in art initiatives, an artist can easily live on welfare without producing anything valuable yet maintain a lifelong status of a “free emerging artist”. Of course, in this case the city itself develops a particular atmosphere of freedom and never-ending youth. In contrast, in Moscow the phenomenon of the young or emerging artist appears because of a lack of support and because of a desire to oppose the established system. In Moscow society, the layer of people who are defined as young artists are perceived as being marginal. Hoping to sooner or later land a contract with a gallery is a certain social guarantee of work profitability in the art world, and artists in many cases are getting frustrated.

Frustration is also thprecisexpression that can be used to describe the artist’s condition after getting a white cube of a gallery space. Frustration comes together with an understanding of an inability to sell your work, even when exhibited in a gallery space. One characteristic of Moscow galleries is unprofitability, because galleries are mostly playing a reputational role in the career of its owner. Thereby, the young artist in Moscow should accept the presence of the wild and developing art market. The young artist should not expect fair play but should strive to attract attention by inventing his or her own rules and principles.

2)Speculative dimension.

This dimension is used by both artists and galleries. Artists must be considered "emerging" to qualify for certain fellowships, grants, and training programs. In western countries, artists can be defined as an emerging until the age of 45 while the Russian limit is 35 years. According to one blog, “using [the] “young/emerging artist” label by [a] gallery helps [it] to hype their potential as investments, much like the stocks of small, unproven companies. An older artist, even if they are doing the best work of their lives, may not offer the same compelling investment story”[1]. On the other hand, it is a definition art galleries use because it sounds better than "new artist" or "unknown artist". “Although the term is almost universally regarded with skepticism, it nonetheless has become one with real significance for those who work in contemporary art”, writes another source [2].

Two dimensions of the “young or emerging artist” definition.

David Ter-Oganyan «Manifestation»

«Radek» magazine cover. Radek group

Shame on 7th of October action, 1994

1960sThe cult of youth was a common occurrence in the 1960s, becoming one of the founding myths of modern mass culture.

Youth has a dual nature: on the one hand it is a power, able to actively create something new, and at the same time it possesses "explosive" and destructive material.

Artists in Moscow based "Children Garden" squat,

1984-1986

20

The Concept of Youth in mass culture:

The cult of youth was a common occurrence in the 1960s, becoming one of the founding myths of modern mass culture. Today, youth is celebrated by the mass media like never before. The capitalist culture of youth contains its own demise. Just like Neverlanders, the residents of the fairytale country who refused to grow up and were stuck in eternal childhood, the new generation is stuck in an eternal youth condition. This condition is a logical response to the replacement of the traditional family by the nuclear family, women's emancipation and the appearance of a new social value system. Each year the value of youth increases with its rarity, and the spread of the cult of youth has already resulted in a shift in the maturity age approximately from 25 to 40 years as a result. The cult of youth is a very comfortable tool used by mass culture for the promotion of hedonistic consumption and a fertile area for investment, which takes into account the gradual reduction of youth in Western society.

Youth is a symbol of social modernization. A social accumulator and a capacitor of the transformations, this process is always gradual (day after day, year after year), and therefore invisible to the general society. These transformations occur in the depths of social life, escaping the attention of the majority, bringing critical views and attitudes toward existing reality, new ideas and energy, which is especially needed at the time of radical reform. Youth has a dual nature: on the one hand it is a power, able to actively create something new, and at the same time it possesses "explosive" and destructive material.

For a city:

Top-down: City policy aimed to support young generation activities

is forming particular atmosphere, spirit or city brand, which mostly plays reputational role in further development and tourist’s attractiveness. Example: city policy of Berlin, which made it third city in Europe according to the number of tourists.

Bottom-up: Initiatives created by youth themselves, which could attract investment support. The regular spotting of some subcultures in particular places attracts investors to construct proper infrastructure and environment.

In terms of art:

Young artists by themselves are unique individuals. They do not require a lot and are even satisfied by less. Filled with great enthusiasm, they are ready to work almost for free in order to develop certain name recognition and be given an opportunity to integrate themselves into the art system. The fact that artists at the first steps of their careers do not require big investments breeds desire to use them as a tool for the promotion of different business ideas. For example, they can be used to attract attention to some developing territory (Project ArtHouse ArtSquat).The “young artists” term became a trend in Russia in late 80s right before the collapse of USSR in time of its agony. This time was characterized by appearance of numerous abandoned places in the very center of Moscow, which in turn were occupied, i.e. squatted in, by the new generation of artists. Those places were considered the main locations of underground culture in Moscow, which became more and more tangible together with the destruction of the system and chaos in the country. The phenomenon of “youth” in terms of art is expressed in constant renewal, in the inflow of new, fresh blood. In recent years, we can see an interesting phenomenon: artists are taking part in manifestations, and activists come to galleries, erasing the

The Concept of Youth (Value) as a Catalyst for Economic and Social Processes.

In Moscow the phenomenon of the young or emerging artist appears because of a lack of support and because of a desire to oppose the established system.

boundaries between art and protest or social activity. Artists are putting protest into the sphere of art and art into the sphere of protest, attracting and bringing an audience, which remains behind them. Contemporary art for them is an additional resource for the expression of ideas. The artistic environment today is more than ever in need of fresh blood. This so-called fresh blood is a new generation. Despite all the disadvantages and the impoverished condition of young artists in Russia, more and more young people want to be artists, accepting rules of disjunct mechanism of Russian art system.

Two dimensions of the “young or emerging artist” definition:

1)Social dimension.

Young artist is a very comfortable term, which replaced entire segments of infrastructure. This is a special social status, which does not require being someone in a professional sense; this status gives the bearer the opportunity to hold it for a long period of time without any development. Furthermore, much depends on the situation of governmental support. In Berlin, where the city's policy is oriented toward support and investment in art initiatives, an artist can easily live on welfare without producing anything valuable yet maintain a lifelong status of a “free emerging artist”. Of course, in this case the city itself develops a particular atmosphere of freedom and never-ending youth. In contrast, in Moscow the phenomenon of the young or emerging artist appears because of a lack of support and because of a desire to oppose the established system. In Moscow society, the layer of people who are defined as young artists are perceived as being marginal. Hoping to sooner or later land a contract with a gallery is a certain social guarantee of work profitability in the art world, and artists in many cases are getting frustrated.

Frustration is also thprecisexpression that can be used to describe the artist’s condition after getting a white cube of a gallery space. Frustration comes together with an understanding of an inability to sell your work, even when exhibited in a gallery space. One characteristic of Moscow galleries is unprofitability, because galleries are mostly playing a reputational role in the career of its owner. Thereby, the young artist in Moscow should accept the presence of the wild and developing art market. The young artist should not expect fair play but should strive to attract attention by inventing his or her own rules and principles.

2)Speculative dimension.

This dimension is used by both artists and galleries. Artists must be considered "emerging" to qualify for certain fellowships, grants, and training programs. In western countries, artists can be defined as an emerging until the age of 45 while the Russian limit is 35 years. According to one blog, “using [the] “young/emerging artist” label by [a] gallery helps [it] to hype their potential as investments, much like the stocks of small, unproven companies. An older artist, even if they are doing the best work of their lives, may not offer the same compelling investment story”[1]. On the other hand, it is a definition art galleries use because it sounds better than "new artist" or "unknown artist". “Although the term is almost universally regarded with skepticism, it nonetheless has become one with real significance for those who work in contemporary art”, writes another source [2].

Two dimensions of the “young or emerging artist” definition.

David Ter-Oganyan «Manifestation»

«Radek» magazine cover. Radek group

Shame on 7th of October action, 1994

1960sThe cult of youth was a common occurrence in the 1960s, becoming one of the founding myths of modern mass culture.

Youth has a dual nature: on the one hand it is a power, able to actively create something new, and at the same time it possesses "explosive" and destructive material.

Artists in Moscow based "Children Garden" squat,

1984-1986

21

For the purpose of this research, I created a database of emerging/young artists in Moscow with following col-umns:

NameBirthplace / area of residenceRepresentation by foundationRepresentation by galleryWebsite/contactsEducational backgroundUtilizing an analysis of art the infra-

structure in Moscow, certain criteria for including an artist into database were elaborated:

The artist should be based in Mos-cow, with an age between 23 to 33 years and exhibited no less than three times or represented by a foundation or gal-lery. In response to my request, I identi-fied 50 artists who became the subject of my further research.

According to the database, 23 artists were represented by foundations while 23 artists were represented by galler-ies (the data was compiled before the closure of the XL, Guelman and Aidan galleries, the more recent number is 19). Twenty-one artists were originally from Moscow.

Art Infrastructure: Education.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new Russia inherited the inertia of all the art infrastructure that was formed during the Soviet period for creation and promotion Soviet ideology. Despite the obvious changes related to the legalization of underground art, and the inclusion into the international art process (exhibitions, biennials, auc-tions), the official artistic way of life in 1990 largely maintained Soviet stand-ards. Yet, even now organizations such as the Union of Artists exist as a certain throwback to Soviet society, lacking connections to the world of contem-porary art but at the same time having lost their ideological-educational sense. As for art universities, classical art edu-cation (from institutions such as the Moscow State Academic Art Institute named after VI Surikov or the Stro-

ing contemporary art. Supporting such events as the Biennale instead of invest-ing in the education field reflects a more consumer-based way of using art, a cer-tain branding of the art field.

Educational background of artists.

The picture of the educational back-ground for young artists in Moscow was built according to the database. Of the artists, 40% graduated from he Insti-tute of Contemporary Art Moscow and only a third have a classical art degree. However, 67% have humanities degrees, mostly in such fields as philosophy and history. The presence of a humanitarian degree in artists' backgrounds is natu-rally reflected in the issues that they are address in their works.

Critical issues.

The critical issues that artists address in their works can be divided into two groups, according to global issues (universal) and issues existing in a local context/scale (particular). We can look upon examples taken from the artists' portfolios.

Issues of Global Scale (~70% of artists): definition of gender status of the indi-vidual as part of the social structure of the prescribed relationships between the sexes; the formation and ways of existing female identity in modern society; question of the nature and role of the market economy in our lives; urbanization, nature, globalization and total consumption in the fate of human-ity; archaeology of possible history of modernity; exploration of the process of changing the world, its sensuous orien-tation, the time of the meeting of differ-ent cultural systems, etc.

Issues of Local Scale (~30% of artists): exploring subcultures, the youth gen-eration that was born right after the col-lapse of USSR, their fears and dreams; rediscovery of the internal mechanisms of the artist community in Russia; a pro-

A database of emerging or young artists in Moscow.

ganov Moscow State University of Arts and Industry), after the collapse of the Union became even more radicalized in the sense of tradition, returning to the academism of the nineteenth century.

The educational platform in the field of contemporary art in Moscow is represented by the list of five schools. (1991- The Institute of Contemporary Art ICA Moscow, 1993- MMOMA Free Workshop Coues, 2003- British Higher School of Art and Design, 2006- The Rodchenko Moscow School of Photog-raphy and Multimedia, 2012- Baza insti-tute). The oldest is the The Institute of Contemporary Art ICA Moscow, which appeared 20 years ago and almost has a monopoly for producing contemporary Russian artists. Twenty artists on the list have graduated from ISA Moscow. More than half of those schools cannot be considered institutions for primary education, and they are better described as representing a model of courses or additional education for the theoretical study of contemporary art. An excep-tion to this is the Rodchenko school, which offers practical work but only in the field of Media and Fine Art, and the department of British Higher School of Art and Design, which did not educate any artist on the list. The number of stu-dents at each school is no more than 35, so in total we have about 150 students in Moscow per year.

Institutions supporting young or emerging artists in Moscow.

Institutions supporting young or emerging artists in Moscow are repre-sented by the following five organiza-tions: two foundations (Victoria Art Foundation, Smirnov and Sorokin Foundation), two exhibition spaces (Fabrika Project, Start Gallery), a few art awards with a special nomination for “young artists“ (Innovation (state), Kan-dinsky Prize) and the Moscow Interna-tional Biennale for Young Art. The latter is the only state institution on the list and that fact just reflects an inconsist-ency in state policy in terms of support-

44%graduated from ICA Moscow

25%Studied contemporary art

abroad

67%Have humanities degree

30%Have classical art degree

80%Have higher degree

25%Have Master

Young artist's generation educational background

David Ter-Oganyan «Untitled», print on canvas 70x120, 2010

ject aimed at showing the change in the country's history through the fate of a real-life person, etc.

It is important to emphasize that issues of global scale dominate in art-ists' works compared with local issues. According to the western experience, artists who are working with particu-lar and very narrow, local issues form a certain category of artists; in many cases, they have a special educational background and local authorities' sup-port. The largest number of different organizations dealing with social and urban art interventions are concen-trated in Canada, the country with the highest coefficient of quality of life and an almost socialistic regime. In Russia, where the art infrastructure is not yet fully established, artists' social activi-ties in many cases are provoked by a redundancy of infrastructure. Artists in their practices are using provocation as a primary tool of expressing ideas. Their practices are very exposed in a global context, but less connected and prob-lematic on narrow local scale.

Important to emphasize that issues of Global Scale in works of artists domi-nate comparably with local issues. According to the western experience, artists who are working with particular very narrow and local issues are form-ing certain category of artists; in many cases they have a special educational background and local authorities sup-port. The biggest number of different organizations, whose are dealing with social and urban art interventions are concentrated in Canada, the country with the highest coefficient of quality of life and almost socialistic regime. In Russia, where art infrastructure yet is not fully established, social activities of artists in many cases provoked by redundancy of infrastructure and art-ists in their practices using provocation as a primary tool of expressing ideas, their practices are very well entered in a global context, but less connected with problematic on narrow local scale.

Parting conclusion.

Artists are not waiting anymore for the interest of the state and do not see the opportunities and conditions for dialogue and collaboration as they are guided by the DIY principle (do it yourself). The lack of decent state funding makes many art institutions and individual artists seek private capital support. However, the empowerment of cultural production at the expense of private investment makes art in many cases similar to the entertainment industry. Many of the critical artists, working thanks private sponsorship money, are forced to consciously develop an abstract critical discourse directed against the abstract things in the abstract world, setting aside the really painful questions of society. On the other hand, state policy in the field of contemporary art is more expressed in consumption and the creation a certain brand of art, making only shy and small attempts to change the situation. These attempts are frequently in the form of a project proposal that is focused on investing in education and supporting young artists. The disconnect between the interest of the state and the activities of young artists is largely due lack of knowledge about the practices and strategies used by artists. At the same time, in the works of the young generation, there are more and more socially-oriented projects that are initiated by the artists themselves.Strategically, the young generation of artists is a very good candidate for implementing a certain kind of interaction with the city, where the potential of artists could be used in order to solve or to attract attention to particular social problems. Artists are young, energetic and yet to a lesser extent assimilated into the art market. At the same time, such projects have been implemented in the West for a long time, where they have been initiated by both the artists and the state.

Critical Issues.

22

For the purpose of this research, I created a database of emerging/young artists in Moscow with following col-umns:

NameBirthplace / area of residenceRepresentation by foundationRepresentation by galleryWebsite/contactsEducational backgroundUtilizing an analysis of art the infra-

structure in Moscow, certain criteria for including an artist into database were elaborated:

The artist should be based in Mos-cow, with an age between 23 to 33 years and exhibited no less than three times or represented by a foundation or gal-lery. In response to my request, I identi-fied 50 artists who became the subject of my further research.

According to the database, 23 artists were represented by foundations while 23 artists were represented by galler-ies (the data was compiled before the closure of the XL, Guelman and Aidan galleries, the more recent number is 19). Twenty-one artists were originally from Moscow.

Art Infrastructure: Education.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new Russia inherited the inertia of all the art infrastructure that was formed during the Soviet period for creation and promotion Soviet ideology. Despite the obvious changes related to the legalization of underground art, and the inclusion into the international art process (exhibitions, biennials, auc-tions), the official artistic way of life in 1990 largely maintained Soviet stand-ards. Yet, even now organizations such as the Union of Artists exist as a certain throwback to Soviet society, lacking connections to the world of contem-porary art but at the same time having lost their ideological-educational sense. As for art universities, classical art edu-cation (from institutions such as the Moscow State Academic Art Institute named after VI Surikov or the Stro-

ing contemporary art. Supporting such events as the Biennale instead of invest-ing in the education field reflects a more consumer-based way of using art, a cer-tain branding of the art field.

Educational background of artists.

The picture of the educational back-ground for young artists in Moscow was built according to the database. Of the artists, 40% graduated from he Insti-tute of Contemporary Art Moscow and only a third have a classical art degree. However, 67% have humanities degrees, mostly in such fields as philosophy and history. The presence of a humanitarian degree in artists' backgrounds is natu-rally reflected in the issues that they are address in their works.

Critical issues.

The critical issues that artists address in their works can be divided into two groups, according to global issues (universal) and issues existing in a local context/scale (particular). We can look upon examples taken from the artists' portfolios.

Issues of Global Scale (~70% of artists): definition of gender status of the indi-vidual as part of the social structure of the prescribed relationships between the sexes; the formation and ways of existing female identity in modern society; question of the nature and role of the market economy in our lives; urbanization, nature, globalization and total consumption in the fate of human-ity; archaeology of possible history of modernity; exploration of the process of changing the world, its sensuous orien-tation, the time of the meeting of differ-ent cultural systems, etc.

Issues of Local Scale (~30% of artists): exploring subcultures, the youth gen-eration that was born right after the col-lapse of USSR, their fears and dreams; rediscovery of the internal mechanisms of the artist community in Russia; a pro-

A database of emerging or young artists in Moscow.

ganov Moscow State University of Arts and Industry), after the collapse of the Union became even more radicalized in the sense of tradition, returning to the academism of the nineteenth century.

The educational platform in the field of contemporary art in Moscow is represented by the list of five schools. (1991- The Institute of Contemporary Art ICA Moscow, 1993- MMOMA Free Workshop Coues, 2003- British Higher School of Art and Design, 2006- The Rodchenko Moscow School of Photog-raphy and Multimedia, 2012- Baza insti-tute). The oldest is the The Institute of Contemporary Art ICA Moscow, which appeared 20 years ago and almost has a monopoly for producing contemporary Russian artists. Twenty artists on the list have graduated from ISA Moscow. More than half of those schools cannot be considered institutions for primary education, and they are better described as representing a model of courses or additional education for the theoretical study of contemporary art. An excep-tion to this is the Rodchenko school, which offers practical work but only in the field of Media and Fine Art, and the department of British Higher School of Art and Design, which did not educate any artist on the list. The number of stu-dents at each school is no more than 35, so in total we have about 150 students in Moscow per year.

Institutions supporting young or emerging artists in Moscow.

Institutions supporting young or emerging artists in Moscow are repre-sented by the following five organiza-tions: two foundations (Victoria Art Foundation, Smirnov and Sorokin Foundation), two exhibition spaces (Fabrika Project, Start Gallery), a few art awards with a special nomination for “young artists“ (Innovation (state), Kan-dinsky Prize) and the Moscow Interna-tional Biennale for Young Art. The latter is the only state institution on the list and that fact just reflects an inconsist-ency in state policy in terms of support-

44%graduated from ICA Moscow

25%Studied contemporary art

abroad

67%Have humanities degree

30%Have classical art degree

80%Have higher degree

25%Have Master

Young artist's generation educational background

David Ter-Oganyan «Untitled», print on canvas 70x120, 2010

ject aimed at showing the change in the country's history through the fate of a real-life person, etc.

It is important to emphasize that issues of global scale dominate in art-ists' works compared with local issues. According to the western experience, artists who are working with particu-lar and very narrow, local issues form a certain category of artists; in many cases, they have a special educational background and local authorities' sup-port. The largest number of different organizations dealing with social and urban art interventions are concen-trated in Canada, the country with the highest coefficient of quality of life and an almost socialistic regime. In Russia, where the art infrastructure is not yet fully established, artists' social activi-ties in many cases are provoked by a redundancy of infrastructure. Artists in their practices are using provocation as a primary tool of expressing ideas. Their practices are very exposed in a global context, but less connected and prob-lematic on narrow local scale.

Important to emphasize that issues of Global Scale in works of artists domi-nate comparably with local issues. According to the western experience, artists who are working with particular very narrow and local issues are form-ing certain category of artists; in many cases they have a special educational background and local authorities sup-port. The biggest number of different organizations, whose are dealing with social and urban art interventions are concentrated in Canada, the country with the highest coefficient of quality of life and almost socialistic regime. In Russia, where art infrastructure yet is not fully established, social activities of artists in many cases provoked by redundancy of infrastructure and art-ists in their practices using provocation as a primary tool of expressing ideas, their practices are very well entered in a global context, but less connected with problematic on narrow local scale.

Parting conclusion.

Artists are not waiting anymore for the interest of the state and do not see the opportunities and conditions for dialogue and collaboration as they are guided by the DIY principle (do it yourself). The lack of decent state funding makes many art institutions and individual artists seek private capital support. However, the empowerment of cultural production at the expense of private investment makes art in many cases similar to the entertainment industry. Many of the critical artists, working thanks private sponsorship money, are forced to consciously develop an abstract critical discourse directed against the abstract things in the abstract world, setting aside the really painful questions of society. On the other hand, state policy in the field of contemporary art is more expressed in consumption and the creation a certain brand of art, making only shy and small attempts to change the situation. These attempts are frequently in the form of a project proposal that is focused on investing in education and supporting young artists. The disconnect between the interest of the state and the activities of young artists is largely due lack of knowledge about the practices and strategies used by artists. At the same time, in the works of the young generation, there are more and more socially-oriented projects that are initiated by the artists themselves.Strategically, the young generation of artists is a very good candidate for implementing a certain kind of interaction with the city, where the potential of artists could be used in order to solve or to attract attention to particular social problems. Artists are young, energetic and yet to a lesser extent assimilated into the art market. At the same time, such projects have been implemented in the West for a long time, where they have been initiated by both the artists and the state.

Critical Issues.

23

The project "Neighbours:Izmailovo".

63People found for

the project

24People agreeing to

participate

28People refusing to

participate

7-59Age of the house

16Apartments

20-63Age of participants

1Communal apartment

1-7

1Garage

1-4Number of rooms

Statistics on the participants:

Postcards with view from the windos of Izmalovites, 9,5 x 13,5 cm each

“Neighbors: Izmailovo” project is an attempt to explore how to bring the initiative to life and what kind of reaction at different levels it can provoke.

The project in the context of research shows how through defining an issue on a narrow local level, art can be used as a tool for the creation of different types of communication, interaction and activity within the district.

as a tool for the creation of different types of communication, interaction and activity within the district.

Idea.

I choose for my experiment the territory of a particular area and to try to identify problematic issues that will be common not only for specific locations, but also for the modern urban society as a whole. For the pilot version of the project, I chose the Izmailovo district, an area that meets several criteria: variety of cultural and historical layers, natural resources (parks, gardens, etc.), differentiation of social structure,

simultaneously. Just as an orthogonal grid of streets and avenues forms the urban fabric of Manhattan, the territory of the Izmailovo is formed by green boulevards and alternating park streets. One of the largest parks in Moscow is Izmailovo Park, which occupies two thirds of the district's territory. It can be compared to the huge Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. But perhaps one of the biggest pluses of this area, not counting the big park, is a diversity of buildings that represent several historical periods. This characteristic is the main factor distinguishing Izmailovo from the monotonous bedroom districts of Moscow.

availability of information.

Issue.

Lack of communication between residents of one district, house, street, is a feature common not only to a specific territory, but also to modern urban society as a whole. Live communication is rapidly disappearing under the onslaught of the increasing speed of modern life, finding compensation only in the virtual space. The goal of my project is an attempt to stir inhabitants' interest in one other, using as an example the Izmailovo district.

District.

Izmailovo is not a bedroom district; it is Manhattan and San Francisco

For the second part of my research, I would love to initiate an experimental project, focused on the particular district and aimed at exploring how a social art initiative can be implemented and what results it could bring. My experimental project, “Neighbors: Izmailovo”, is not just a project, but also an attempt to explore how to bring the initiative to life and what kind of reaction at different levels it can provoke. Accordingly, the project consists of two undivided parts: the narrative and the project implementation itself.

The project in the context of research shows how through defining an issue on a narrow local level, art can be used

18Izmailovites / participants

Number of peoplein appartment

24

The project "Neighbours:Izmailovo".

63People found for

the project

24People agreeing to

participate

28People refusing to

participate

7-59Age of the house

16Apartments

20-63Age of participants

1Communal apartment

1-7

1Garage

1-4Number of rooms

Statistics on the participants:

Postcards with view from the windos of Izmalovites, 9,5 x 13,5 cm each

“Neighbors: Izmailovo” project is an attempt to explore how to bring the initiative to life and what kind of reaction at different levels it can provoke.

The project in the context of research shows how through defining an issue on a narrow local level, art can be used as a tool for the creation of different types of communication, interaction and activity within the district.

as a tool for the creation of different types of communication, interaction and activity within the district.

Idea.

I choose for my experiment the territory of a particular area and to try to identify problematic issues that will be common not only for specific locations, but also for the modern urban society as a whole. For the pilot version of the project, I chose the Izmailovo district, an area that meets several criteria: variety of cultural and historical layers, natural resources (parks, gardens, etc.), differentiation of social structure,

simultaneously. Just as an orthogonal grid of streets and avenues forms the urban fabric of Manhattan, the territory of the Izmailovo is formed by green boulevards and alternating park streets. One of the largest parks in Moscow is Izmailovo Park, which occupies two thirds of the district's territory. It can be compared to the huge Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. But perhaps one of the biggest pluses of this area, not counting the big park, is a diversity of buildings that represent several historical periods. This characteristic is the main factor distinguishing Izmailovo from the monotonous bedroom districts of Moscow.

availability of information.

Issue.

Lack of communication between residents of one district, house, street, is a feature common not only to a specific territory, but also to modern urban society as a whole. Live communication is rapidly disappearing under the onslaught of the increasing speed of modern life, finding compensation only in the virtual space. The goal of my project is an attempt to stir inhabitants' interest in one other, using as an example the Izmailovo district.

District.

Izmailovo is not a bedroom district; it is Manhattan and San Francisco

For the second part of my research, I would love to initiate an experimental project, focused on the particular district and aimed at exploring how a social art initiative can be implemented and what results it could bring. My experimental project, “Neighbors: Izmailovo”, is not just a project, but also an attempt to explore how to bring the initiative to life and what kind of reaction at different levels it can provoke. Accordingly, the project consists of two undivided parts: the narrative and the project implementation itself.

The project in the context of research shows how through defining an issue on a narrow local level, art can be used

18Izmailovites / participants

Number of peoplein appartment

25

Project. In the “Izmailovo: Neighbors” project, I have addressed the role of the artist-initiator, involving the residents in a certain game-dialogue, building between them a network of communicational links. The art in this case is art to a lesser extent and more a tool for social interaction, which allows one to look at ordinary things from a new angle, to create a space for an experiment. The district area is a space of anthropological investigation, an attempt to identify the people whose lives are held within the walls of these residences. These people transform their personal space according to their lifestyles, habits and hobbies and define just where the border between personal and common, private and public lies. Could the area of the district be a starting point for the formation of a certain community of people inhabiting it? In this project, the material side of life is shown through the environment. Personal belongings are a carrier of information, a medium that allows one to make a trip into a person's sacred, private space. The project includes the stories of 18 Izmailovo residents, told through photographs and audio documentations of their private lives. The action takes place in four walls of apartment buildings, united by the common territory of the district. The story of the every project participant is told using a fixed set of pictures and text: a photo of the room, one personal item with a text story about it, a photo portrait of the person or family and a photographic view from the window. The view from the window in this case is the bridge between the personal and common outer space of the street, which can be easily identified by any resident of the district or just a random passerby. Based on the photos of the view from the window of each participant, I created a series of postcards which are printed with the particular triage and then distributed among participants in order to send a postcard with a view from his/her window on the cover to their friends, neighbors, residents of the area, and unknown people with whom they live in one house, on one street, in the same district. Thus, the experiment is not confined on the people directly participating in the project. It creates a live chain, evolving in an unpredictable scenario, drawing new people into dialogue. The idea of using postcards is a certain flashback to the time when postcards were sent to relatives and friends on all sorts of festive dates. The postcard, in this case, is also an invitation to the exhibition, which sums up the project. As a result, the stories of Izmailovo's residents will be told through personal photographs, interior details and invitations.

1 http://artmarket.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/at-the-moment-i-am-trying-to-figure-out/2 http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/37477/what-does-emerging-really-mean-in-the-art-world/Piroschka Dossi. Hype! Kunst und Geld. Moscow: Tublin Press, 2011.Judith Benhamou-Huet. The Worth of Art: Pricing the Priceless, Assouline, 2001. Christel Vesters. Now Art&Theory is the 21st Century Time. Rotterdam: Nai Publishers, 2009Stas Shuripa. New conceptual wave or nature of ideas in young art. Moscow Art Magazine 73/74, 2009. Artchronika Magazine. Who they are?, June 2010. David W. Galenson. Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.Denise Meredyth, Jeffrey Minson. Citizenship and Cultural policy. London: SAGE publication, 2001.

The project "Neighbours:Izmailovo".

2Personal connection

4Friends of participants

29Friends of friends

26Social networks

1Local forum

Sources of people attraction for the project

Picturies from the project.

Bibliography

References

26

Project. In the “Izmailovo: Neighbors” project, I have addressed the role of the artist-initiator, involving the residents in a certain game-dialogue, building between them a network of communicational links. The art in this case is art to a lesser extent and more a tool for social interaction, which allows one to look at ordinary things from a new angle, to create a space for an experiment. The district area is a space of anthropological investigation, an attempt to identify the people whose lives are held within the walls of these residences. These people transform their personal space according to their lifestyles, habits and hobbies and define just where the border between personal and common, private and public lies. Could the area of the district be a starting point for the formation of a certain community of people inhabiting it? In this project, the material side of life is shown through the environment. Personal belongings are a carrier of information, a medium that allows one to make a trip into a person's sacred, private space. The project includes the stories of 18 Izmailovo residents, told through photographs and audio documentations of their private lives. The action takes place in four walls of apartment buildings, united by the common territory of the district. The story of the every project participant is told using a fixed set of pictures and text: a photo of the room, one personal item with a text story about it, a photo portrait of the person or family and a photographic view from the window. The view from the window in this case is the bridge between the personal and common outer space of the street, which can be easily identified by any resident of the district or just a random passerby. Based on the photos of the view from the window of each participant, I created a series of postcards which are printed with the particular triage and then distributed among participants in order to send a postcard with a view from his/her window on the cover to their friends, neighbors, residents of the area, and unknown people with whom they live in one house, on one street, in the same district. Thus, the experiment is not confined on the people directly participating in the project. It creates a live chain, evolving in an unpredictable scenario, drawing new people into dialogue. The idea of using postcards is a certain flashback to the time when postcards were sent to relatives and friends on all sorts of festive dates. The postcard, in this case, is also an invitation to the exhibition, which sums up the project. As a result, the stories of Izmailovo's residents will be told through personal photographs, interior details and invitations.

1 http://artmarket.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/at-the-moment-i-am-trying-to-figure-out/2 http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/37477/what-does-emerging-really-mean-in-the-art-world/Piroschka Dossi. Hype! Kunst und Geld. Moscow: Tublin Press, 2011.Judith Benhamou-Huet. The Worth of Art: Pricing the Priceless, Assouline, 2001. Christel Vesters. Now Art&Theory is the 21st Century Time. Rotterdam: Nai Publishers, 2009Stas Shuripa. New conceptual wave or nature of ideas in young art. Moscow Art Magazine 73/74, 2009. Artchronika Magazine. Who they are?, June 2010. David W. Galenson. Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.Denise Meredyth, Jeffrey Minson. Citizenship and Cultural policy. London: SAGE publication, 2001.

The project "Neighbours:Izmailovo".

2Personal connection

4Friends of participants

29Friends of friends

26Social networks

1Local forum

Sources of people attraction for the project

Picturies from the project.

Bibliography

References

27

Russian Contemporary Art: between delay and emancipationSilvia Franceschini

Contemporary Art is a major tool for twenty-first century cities to compete and to connect at the global scale. Enormous public investments are made all over the world in order to position cities on the map of the main international cultural geographies. Museums and art institutions become universal landmarks; arts schools become platforms of international exchange and cross-contamination; fairs and biennials are occasions for global tourism. Moscow's field of contemporary art represents a singularity within this global phenomenon. Despite huge potential in terms of cultural and economic resources, the Russian capital in the last twenty years refused to adapt to the hyper-modernity at the same speed as the other post-communist cities of Europe or Asia and is constantly in danger of becoming a "provin-cial megalopolis" (1).

Reinforcing its barriers against the outside, instead of opening to cross-cultural exchanges, the city lost at the moment of the collapse of the USSR, the opportunity to become a relevant artistic hub for the Eurasian block. It passed up the chance to create a new and unique for-mulation of the contemporary based on the experience of the post-Soviet space. On the con-trary, the main actors in the art system have chosen to become a "reproduction of the west" by providing the city with an index of cultural institutions that were not locally produced [MMoma, Biennales, Art Fairs]. These institutions did not merged with the existing layer of the Soviet public cultural infrastructure. The government did not envisioned contemporary art either as a tool of international soft power, or as an instrument to raise the level of civil society. This left a significant gap between art and society, art and public, art and the mar-ket but especially between artists and the system to which they belong.

Twenty years later, in this moment of "global chaos", when art is becoming internationally an open-ground for political and social expression, a territory where everything is allowed and where all the other disciplines converge, Russian artists and their peculiar attachment to politics and reality have become relevant. The artist’s isolation and resistance to adapt to the wave of the neo-liberal market economy now makes them at the forefront of the recon-figuration of the future .

This research has been an attempt to understand Russian contemporary art between delay and avant-garde. I have looked at how the field of contemporary art has developed and become institutionalized in the last 20 years since the opening to the market economy. I strived to understand how this "system" revealed the unique relationship between society and the art of the post-Soviet city. A multidimensional analysis of the system with all its actors has allowed me to observe the main causes and dynamics and to formulate a few statements and a hypothesis. A comparative analysis with other realities (Berlin, Beijing, the other countries ofmaking up BRIC and the United States) has served as a confirmation of these. The fieldwork investigation also included a collection of a series of outtakes from interviews from different professionals in the sector.

1. Auditorium Moscow. A Sketch for a

Public Space, September 16 - October

16, 2011, Bielie Palaty, Prechistenka

1/2, Moscow

Sergey Sapozhnikov / Albert Pogorelkin, Halabuda, 2010. C-type print. Photo courtesy of the artist.

28

Russian Contemporary Art: between delay and emancipationSilvia Franceschini

Contemporary Art is a major tool for twenty-first century cities to compete and to connect at the global scale. Enormous public investments are made all over the world in order to position cities on the map of the main international cultural geographies. Museums and art institutions become universal landmarks; arts schools become platforms of international exchange and cross-contamination; fairs and biennials are occasions for global tourism. Moscow's field of contemporary art represents a singularity within this global phenomenon. Despite huge potential in terms of cultural and economic resources, the Russian capital in the last twenty years refused to adapt to the hyper-modernity at the same speed as the other post-communist cities of Europe or Asia and is constantly in danger of becoming a "provin-cial megalopolis" (1).

Reinforcing its barriers against the outside, instead of opening to cross-cultural exchanges, the city lost at the moment of the collapse of the USSR, the opportunity to become a relevant artistic hub for the Eurasian block. It passed up the chance to create a new and unique for-mulation of the contemporary based on the experience of the post-Soviet space. On the con-trary, the main actors in the art system have chosen to become a "reproduction of the west" by providing the city with an index of cultural institutions that were not locally produced [MMoma, Biennales, Art Fairs]. These institutions did not merged with the existing layer of the Soviet public cultural infrastructure. The government did not envisioned contemporary art either as a tool of international soft power, or as an instrument to raise the level of civil society. This left a significant gap between art and society, art and public, art and the mar-ket but especially between artists and the system to which they belong.

Twenty years later, in this moment of "global chaos", when art is becoming internationally an open-ground for political and social expression, a territory where everything is allowed and where all the other disciplines converge, Russian artists and their peculiar attachment to politics and reality have become relevant. The artist’s isolation and resistance to adapt to the wave of the neo-liberal market economy now makes them at the forefront of the recon-figuration of the future .

This research has been an attempt to understand Russian contemporary art between delay and avant-garde. I have looked at how the field of contemporary art has developed and become institutionalized in the last 20 years since the opening to the market economy. I strived to understand how this "system" revealed the unique relationship between society and the art of the post-Soviet city. A multidimensional analysis of the system with all its actors has allowed me to observe the main causes and dynamics and to formulate a few statements and a hypothesis. A comparative analysis with other realities (Berlin, Beijing, the other countries ofmaking up BRIC and the United States) has served as a confirmation of these. The fieldwork investigation also included a collection of a series of outtakes from interviews from different professionals in the sector.

1. Auditorium Moscow. A Sketch for a

Public Space, September 16 - October

16, 2011, Bielie Palaty, Prechistenka

1/2, Moscow

Sergey Sapozhnikov / Albert Pogorelkin, Halabuda, 2010. C-type print. Photo courtesy of the artist.

29

The seeds for the development of contemporary art infrastructure started to appear during the last period of the Soviet Union. Gorbatchev's Glasnost and Perestroïka alleviated the socio-cultural situation in 1986, conveying alternative and humanists values. Artists not registered within the Union of Artists could, at last, come out of clandestine creativity and pretend to possess the right to form associations and clubs and to exhibit in communal exhi-bition halls. In that period of time, the first independent organizations started to appear like Furmanny Lane Workshop, Amateur association Hermitage, Avanguardist club Klava as well as the first traces of existence of a so-called "Art Market"(2).

At the turn of the '90s, when the infrastructure collapsed and the new commercial infra-structure didn't appear, the art field was driven by intellect and experimentation. The artistic environment was characterized by what Viktor Misiano called "Tusovka" (3), an informal network of collective imitational praxis. Artists performed in public spaces, founded artist-driven schools (Avdej Ter Oganian founded a School for Contemporary Art). The financier George Soros appeared on the Moscow scene in 1992 and provided funding for the opening of the first infrastructure for contemporary art like the CAC (Center for Contemporary Art), the Media Art Lab on Yakimanka Street (both were closed in 1995) and the ICA (Institute for Contemporary Art), the first educational program in Contemporary Art directed by Joseph Backstain.

After some years of creative confusion and multi-polarity, new polarities started to emerge. At the end of the 1990s, a few powerful individuals started to think about how to organize an "art system". Inspired by the western model and thanks to connections with the authorities, they were able to establish an index of art institutions. Leonid Bazhanov, the director of the Department of Contemporary Art in the Moscow government, created the NCCA (the National Center of Contemporary Art); Zurab Tseretely, the director of the Acad-emy of Art, created the MMOMA (Moscow Museum of Modern Art) and Joseph Backstain created the Moscow Biennale of Contemporary Art.

A system in transition

2. In 1986, at the 17th exhibition

of Youth in Moscow artists were

allowed to sell art. The first galler-

ies started to appear in 1989 and

1990 saw the opening of the first

International Art fair "Art Mif, Ideal

project for a Soviet Art Market."

From Georgy Nikich, interview

with the author.

3. Misiano, Viktor, The Cultural

Contradictions of the Tusovka, The

Moscow Art Magazin, 1998

At the beginning of the new century, oligarchs, moving between philanthropic action and use of the arts to legitimate their business activities, gave birth to numerous foundations for the promotion of Contemporary Art. With strong economic power, foundations became the managers of the art system: they commissioned works, financed exhibitions and purchased artwork. With the power to select, evaluate and export, they turned out to be the only thing connecting the system with the global network of contemporary art.

Although the emergence of the private sector was what was most desired by the govern-ment, according to the famous Basic Law of Culture in 1992, where the government shrugged off responsibility for cultural activities, any decision was made to create a medium for com-munication between the public and private sectors. In contrast with what happened in the United States or Germany, the Russian government did not introduce any significant tax breaks for donations and fund raising. That is why in Moscow it is possible to count just 12 private foundations and that is also why some oligarchs prefer to support foreign institutions for contemporary art over local institutions. The absence of a set of clear policies for almost 20 years has obstructed the flow of capital and allowed for the creation of a system with inevi-table polarities that is dominated by inequality, competition and frustration for all creative workers that cannot access the network of private foundations. In writing the law code, the government removed the country's cultural relationship with the former Soviet Republics. No agreement was stipulated to maintain corridors of privileged exchange with the former Soviet Countries (4).

Moreover, accent was placed on “preservation” and not on “modernization” of the exist-ing cultural infrastructure. For this reason, the Soviet cultural infrastructure, which was characterized by training and research institutes, academic museums and exhibition centers, after the moment of disintegration, did not move towards modernization. Some organiza-tions like the Academy of the Arts and the Union of Artists were dissolved but soon reconsti-tuted in a similar fashion (5).

Arseniy Zhilyaev, Readymade save us, 2011. Mixed media. Photo courtesy of the artist.Stained glass window from Presnya historical museum, Moscow. Photo courtesy of V-A-C Foundation.

4. At the State level the “Commit-

tee for Connection of Republic

of Union of Independent States”

didn't stipulate any corridor of

privileged exchange with the

former Soviet countries. In the '90

Viktor Misiano and Marat Guel-

man were the only to work on the

re-elaboration of a "Post-Soviet

space".

5. Misiano, Viktor, Il sistema

dell’arte dell’autoritarismo glamour

in Scotini, Marco, No-Order, Art

in a Post-Fordist society, Archive

Books, Berlin, 2011

30

The seeds for the development of contemporary art infrastructure started to appear during the last period of the Soviet Union. Gorbatchev's Glasnost and Perestroïka alleviated the socio-cultural situation in 1986, conveying alternative and humanists values. Artists not registered within the Union of Artists could, at last, come out of clandestine creativity and pretend to possess the right to form associations and clubs and to exhibit in communal exhi-bition halls. In that period of time, the first independent organizations started to appear like Furmanny Lane Workshop, Amateur association Hermitage, Avanguardist club Klava as well as the first traces of existence of a so-called "Art Market"(2).

At the turn of the '90s, when the infrastructure collapsed and the new commercial infra-structure didn't appear, the art field was driven by intellect and experimentation. The artistic environment was characterized by what Viktor Misiano called "Tusovka" (3), an informal network of collective imitational praxis. Artists performed in public spaces, founded artist-driven schools (Avdej Ter Oganian founded a School for Contemporary Art). The financier George Soros appeared on the Moscow scene in 1992 and provided funding for the opening of the first infrastructure for contemporary art like the CAC (Center for Contemporary Art), the Media Art Lab on Yakimanka Street (both were closed in 1995) and the ICA (Institute for Contemporary Art), the first educational program in Contemporary Art directed by Joseph Backstain.

After some years of creative confusion and multi-polarity, new polarities started to emerge. At the end of the 1990s, a few powerful individuals started to think about how to organize an "art system". Inspired by the western model and thanks to connections with the authorities, they were able to establish an index of art institutions. Leonid Bazhanov, the director of the Department of Contemporary Art in the Moscow government, created the NCCA (the National Center of Contemporary Art); Zurab Tseretely, the director of the Acad-emy of Art, created the MMOMA (Moscow Museum of Modern Art) and Joseph Backstain created the Moscow Biennale of Contemporary Art.

A system in transition

2. In 1986, at the 17th exhibition

of Youth in Moscow artists were

allowed to sell art. The first galler-

ies started to appear in 1989 and

1990 saw the opening of the first

International Art fair "Art Mif, Ideal

project for a Soviet Art Market."

From Georgy Nikich, interview

with the author.

3. Misiano, Viktor, The Cultural

Contradictions of the Tusovka, The

Moscow Art Magazin, 1998

At the beginning of the new century, oligarchs, moving between philanthropic action and use of the arts to legitimate their business activities, gave birth to numerous foundations for the promotion of Contemporary Art. With strong economic power, foundations became the managers of the art system: they commissioned works, financed exhibitions and purchased artwork. With the power to select, evaluate and export, they turned out to be the only thing connecting the system with the global network of contemporary art.

Although the emergence of the private sector was what was most desired by the govern-ment, according to the famous Basic Law of Culture in 1992, where the government shrugged off responsibility for cultural activities, any decision was made to create a medium for com-munication between the public and private sectors. In contrast with what happened in the United States or Germany, the Russian government did not introduce any significant tax breaks for donations and fund raising. That is why in Moscow it is possible to count just 12 private foundations and that is also why some oligarchs prefer to support foreign institutions for contemporary art over local institutions. The absence of a set of clear policies for almost 20 years has obstructed the flow of capital and allowed for the creation of a system with inevi-table polarities that is dominated by inequality, competition and frustration for all creative workers that cannot access the network of private foundations. In writing the law code, the government removed the country's cultural relationship with the former Soviet Republics. No agreement was stipulated to maintain corridors of privileged exchange with the former Soviet Countries (4).

Moreover, accent was placed on “preservation” and not on “modernization” of the exist-ing cultural infrastructure. For this reason, the Soviet cultural infrastructure, which was characterized by training and research institutes, academic museums and exhibition centers, after the moment of disintegration, did not move towards modernization. Some organiza-tions like the Academy of the Arts and the Union of Artists were dissolved but soon reconsti-tuted in a similar fashion (5).

Arseniy Zhilyaev, Readymade save us, 2011. Mixed media. Photo courtesy of the artist.Stained glass window from Presnya historical museum, Moscow. Photo courtesy of V-A-C Foundation.

4. At the State level the “Commit-

tee for Connection of Republic

of Union of Independent States”

didn't stipulate any corridor of

privileged exchange with the

former Soviet countries. In the '90

Viktor Misiano and Marat Guel-

man were the only to work on the

re-elaboration of a "Post-Soviet

space".

5. Misiano, Viktor, Il sistema

dell’arte dell’autoritarismo glamour

in Scotini, Marco, No-Order, Art

in a Post-Fordist society, Archive

Books, Berlin, 2011

31

BRICS CONTEMPORARY ART MARKET

STATE BUDGET FINANCING OF CULTURE

RUSSIA/ $ 30 mill _ INDIA/ $ 60 millBRASIL/ $ 120 mil _ CHINA / $ 900 mill

GDP [Trilions Dollars]2,1 5,9

0,15

0,06

0,040,02

1,5 1,6

CHINA

BRASIL

INDIA

RUSSIA

[CAI]

CAI [Contemporary Art Market Index] = Contemporary Art Market in percent of GDP*

* Art Market data elaborated on the source of Artnet, Phillips De Pury, Sotheby's and Christies. * GDP from World Bank.

ICI [Intensity Cultural Index] = Cultural Investment in percent of GDPPI [Public Investment]

ICI

0,35%

0,26%

0,17%

12,5 miliards

15 miliards

2,5 miliards

RUSSIA GERMANY CHINA

PI

6. Count effectuated on the base of

different on-line databases.

7. Straka, Barbara, Berlin - a place

to be for art and artists - a place to

stay?, carried forward as part of the

visit of a delegation of the Strelka,

Institute for Media, Architecture

and Design

8. Moscow Union of Artists, Artists

Trade Union of Russia, Creative

Union of Artists, Union of artists

of Arbat.

9. Properties overcome 60.000 m2.

Moscow Union of Artists (http://

artanum.ru/).

10. The average price for a studio

in the clusters oscillates is 20.000

rubles for m2 for year.

11. The Artists' Social Insurance Act

(KSVG) came into force on August

2nd, 1981 and encompasses statu-

tory health, long-term or old age

care and pension insurance. Like

employees, the artists and journal-

ists / authors must only pay half of

the social insurance contribution.

Council of Europe, Compendium of

Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe,

Germany, 13RU - 8 th edition, 2011.

12. Minaev, Roman in Academia

IV, 2010

13. Backstain school declares to

have a budget of about 3000 dollars

a year (Joseph Backstein, Interview

with the author, 14/05/2012) while

The Rodchenko Moscow School

of Photography and Multimedia

depends on the small budget of The

Moscow Museum of Multimedia.

Art vs. Production

The number of artists in Moscow oscillates between 200 to 300 contemporary artists (6) (small number if compared with the 20,000 artists of Berlin (7) ) and approximately 1,500 traditional artists who are part of the different Artists Unions (8).

The Main Union of Artists has maintained a structure similar to that during Soviet times, with its specific system of grants, pensions, and properties. The artists' studios are the most impressive of those properties: a network of more than 100 very luminous studios are dis-seminated around the city center in historical buildings from pre-revolutionary and Soviet times (9). These spaces are enviable for artists who do not have access to the Unions and need to adapt to the conditions of the so-called post-industrial "Creative Clusters"(10) or to work without a studio.

The lack of space for production is just one of the many conditions of precariousness that has affected artists following the collapse of the USSR. The state has not updated social support system as happened, for example in Berlin, where the unions of East Germany dis-solved and merged with the governmental western system of the Artists' Social Insurance Act (KSVG)(11), a form of special state protection for self-employed artists.

The small number of artists in Moscow is also strictly connected to the educational system. Nowadays, the Academy of Arts still supports the most conservative schools and institu-tions of art and design; they do not give enough attention to contemporary art practices. Therefore, among the young artists, there is a perception that such disciplines as philoso-phy and psychology may substitute for an education in an art institute (12). The only two schools really devoted to Contemporary Art (The Rodchenko Moscow School of Photography and Multimedia and the ICA, which is directed by Dr. Joseph Backstein) graduate in total just 120 students per year. Both of the schools are very underfunded (13). Moreover, not one of the educational institutions includes bilateral exchange programs: students can live abroad but foreign students cannot come to Russia. Artists have been emigrating since the 1980s, but hardly any foreign artists have immigrated to Russia. The current infrastructure does not allow for the integration of foreign professionals in the art system, that inevitably remain local. The condition of the educational system seems to be the most visible sign of Russia's delay to modernize the arts and the biggest lost value from the Soviet era where education was at the base of the cultural infrastructure.

Other actors who contribute to the production of artists are private foundations that pro-vide artists with studios, money for the realization of projects and scholarships to go abroad. Galleries play a very secondary role in the system of production. Two prizes, Innovation, which is supported by the state, and the Kandinsky, which is supported by the ArtChronika Foundation, are considered to be equal to international prizes such as the Turner Prize or Prix Marcel Duchamp. However, they are not powerful enough to promote artists in the long term and on the international scene.

32

BRICS CONTEMPORARY ART MARKET

STATE BUDGET FINANCING OF CULTURE

RUSSIA/ $ 30 mill _ INDIA/ $ 60 millBRASIL/ $ 120 mil _ CHINA / $ 900 mill

GDP [Trilions Dollars]2,1 5,9

0,15

0,06

0,040,02

1,5 1,6

CHINA

BRASIL

INDIA

RUSSIA

[CAI]

CAI [Contemporary Art Market Index] = Contemporary Art Market in percent of GDP*

* Art Market data elaborated on the source of Artnet, Phillips De Pury, Sotheby's and Christies. * GDP from World Bank.

ICI [Intensity Cultural Index] = Cultural Investment in percent of GDPPI [Public Investment]

ICI

0,35%

0,26%

0,17%

12,5 miliards

15 miliards

2,5 miliards

RUSSIA GERMANY CHINA

PI

6. Count effectuated on the base of

different on-line databases.

7. Straka, Barbara, Berlin - a place

to be for art and artists - a place to

stay?, carried forward as part of the

visit of a delegation of the Strelka,

Institute for Media, Architecture

and Design

8. Moscow Union of Artists, Artists

Trade Union of Russia, Creative

Union of Artists, Union of artists

of Arbat.

9. Properties overcome 60.000 m2.

Moscow Union of Artists (http://

artanum.ru/).

10. The average price for a studio

in the clusters oscillates is 20.000

rubles for m2 for year.

11. The Artists' Social Insurance Act

(KSVG) came into force on August

2nd, 1981 and encompasses statu-

tory health, long-term or old age

care and pension insurance. Like

employees, the artists and journal-

ists / authors must only pay half of

the social insurance contribution.

Council of Europe, Compendium of

Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe,

Germany, 13RU - 8 th edition, 2011.

12. Minaev, Roman in Academia

IV, 2010

13. Backstain school declares to

have a budget of about 3000 dollars

a year (Joseph Backstein, Interview

with the author, 14/05/2012) while

The Rodchenko Moscow School

of Photography and Multimedia

depends on the small budget of The

Moscow Museum of Multimedia.

Art vs. Production

The number of artists in Moscow oscillates between 200 to 300 contemporary artists (6) (small number if compared with the 20,000 artists of Berlin (7) ) and approximately 1,500 traditional artists who are part of the different Artists Unions (8).

The Main Union of Artists has maintained a structure similar to that during Soviet times, with its specific system of grants, pensions, and properties. The artists' studios are the most impressive of those properties: a network of more than 100 very luminous studios are dis-seminated around the city center in historical buildings from pre-revolutionary and Soviet times (9). These spaces are enviable for artists who do not have access to the Unions and need to adapt to the conditions of the so-called post-industrial "Creative Clusters"(10) or to work without a studio.

The lack of space for production is just one of the many conditions of precariousness that has affected artists following the collapse of the USSR. The state has not updated social support system as happened, for example in Berlin, where the unions of East Germany dis-solved and merged with the governmental western system of the Artists' Social Insurance Act (KSVG)(11), a form of special state protection for self-employed artists.

The small number of artists in Moscow is also strictly connected to the educational system. Nowadays, the Academy of Arts still supports the most conservative schools and institu-tions of art and design; they do not give enough attention to contemporary art practices. Therefore, among the young artists, there is a perception that such disciplines as philoso-phy and psychology may substitute for an education in an art institute (12). The only two schools really devoted to Contemporary Art (The Rodchenko Moscow School of Photography and Multimedia and the ICA, which is directed by Dr. Joseph Backstein) graduate in total just 120 students per year. Both of the schools are very underfunded (13). Moreover, not one of the educational institutions includes bilateral exchange programs: students can live abroad but foreign students cannot come to Russia. Artists have been emigrating since the 1980s, but hardly any foreign artists have immigrated to Russia. The current infrastructure does not allow for the integration of foreign professionals in the art system, that inevitably remain local. The condition of the educational system seems to be the most visible sign of Russia's delay to modernize the arts and the biggest lost value from the Soviet era where education was at the base of the cultural infrastructure.

Other actors who contribute to the production of artists are private foundations that pro-vide artists with studios, money for the realization of projects and scholarships to go abroad. Galleries play a very secondary role in the system of production. Two prizes, Innovation, which is supported by the state, and the Kandinsky, which is supported by the ArtChronika Foundation, are considered to be equal to international prizes such as the Turner Prize or Prix Marcel Duchamp. However, they are not powerful enough to promote artists in the long term and on the international scene.

33

The closed nature of Russia still remains a problem for the development of the art market. The art market in Russia has for twenty years been a sort of phantasm on the wave of the new Russian economy that never bloomed. The market was at its zenith at the end of the 1980s. In 1983-84, competition was rather strong between German and American collectors, who where the first to discover the nonconformist art. In 1988, the Ministry of Culture partnered with Sotheby in a famous auction that generated more than GBP2 million. At this moment of international attention, the government lost an opportunity to set up a platform of interna-tional exchange for art (as happened in Spain after Franco, for example). After that a new wave of market appeared in 2006, but this was soon stifled by economic crises. Nowadays, the market seems to be in danger once again. Russia is the most undeveloped art market within the BRIC countries. Moscow presents a portfolio of approximately 20 galleries (compared to the 600 galleries of Berlin and 400 of Beijing (17)) that have almost no turnover (more than one gallery reports declare to have three to four stable collectors and the gallery supports its activity with parallel businesses(18) ). Three of the main galleries of the city (Guelman, XL Gallery and the Aidan Gallery) have recently announced their decision to reorient their com-mercial activity towards a non-profit model. The Moscow Art fair is small in size and still very local and closed to the international market. With revenues of just over 4 million euro (4.465 million euro) and 25,000 visitors (19), the fair pales in comparison with the Basel Art Fair, which generates of tens of millions of euros in revenue and has around 100,000 visitors. Phillips De Pury claims to have 100 clients in Russia (20) who buy contemporary art (compared with 10,000 in New York) . According to Pierre Brochet (21), the reasons for the backwardness of art markets are different: the absence of the figure of the president supporting arts and fairs, the fact that collectors see permanently exhibited in Moscow Museums art from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and not contemporary art and the claim that in such a materialistic culture, art often based on con-cepts, words and institutional and political critique is hardly appreciated .

17. http://www.culturalexchange-

cn.nl/mapping-china/visual-arts

18. Open Gallery / Paperwork

Gallery, Interview with the author,

26/05/2012

19. ART MOSCOW, International

Art Fair, Project History, 2011

20. Svetlana Marich, Interview

with the author, 1/03/2012

21. Pierre Brochet, Interview with

the author

14. Misiano, Viktor, Il sistema

dell’arte dell’autoritarismo glamour in

Scotini, Marco, No-Order, Art in a

Post-Fordist society, Archive Books,

Berlin, 2011

15. David Riff in Misiano, Viktor

/ Riff, David, Suspending Criticism:

Criticism in Suspense, Chto Delat

magazin (http://www.chtodelat.

org)

16. THE ART NEWSPAPER, No.

212, APRIL 2012. Exhibition and

Museum Attendance figure 2011.

Art vs. Mediation

The word "mediation" describes something quite unrelated to Russia, a society characterised by climatic and political extremes. While a program of public art has never been initiated by the Russian government, whenever art goes public, it does so in the form of a scandal or of a political manifesto.

If production seems to be the part of the system that is more underfunded and in danger of disappearing, mediation is definitely an aspect that is overfunded but in danger of shifting towards simple strategies of promotion. As Viktor Misiano explained well in his articles about the transformation of cultural infrastructure in the transitional period, the Soviet cultural intelligentsia disappeared over the course of a few years (14). The cultural industry is being constructed on the dismantling of the expert community and on the hiring of the entrepre-neurial one: critics, historians and scientists who gravitated to the art field have been soon replaced by managers and developers. The consequences have been the creation of a "positive mediation" (15) not based on criticism or intellectualism but just worried about the building of the infrastructure itself. The figure of the "curator", one of the most powerful actors in the western model of art societies, took some time to appear and to be organically integrated into the system. For this reason, exhibition practices were not consolidated as an act of construc-tion of the artists or the creation of discourse. Instead, it has often oscillated between an act of self-affirmation and political commentary.

To survive with such a weak system of mediation, on the one hand, artists have continued their practice of self promotion, becoming their own curator and in many cases acting as curators for their friends. On the other hand, private foundations have filled the gap left by the nearly inconsistent actions of art institutions. Private foundations have positioned them-selves as the main entity responsible for the exhibition and promotion of artists in Russia as well as abroad. Thanks to big capital, oligarchs are able to overcome the bureaucratic barriers and to take to Moscow International exhibitions, artists and curators; they are also able to send abroad Russian artists in international exhibitions. Even thought necessary for the rec-ognition of Russian artists (that still happen in the west), this manipulated system of import/export has appeared sometimes aggressive and criticized by the artists themselves.

The creation of a public art community and the enlargement of the principal art community has not been considered a priority on art institutions' agendas for a long time. They simply have not been interested in creating forums and engaging audiences. Wealthy Russian patrons for their part have not justified their support for the arts by invoking a larger objec-tive of bringing contemporary art to the masses (as it happened, for example, in the U.S. at the beginning of the twentieth century).Public interest in contemporary art does not even come near competing with public interest in traditional art. (In 2011 the Tretyakov Gallery registered 1,283,401 visitors while the Mos-cow Museum of Modern Art registered 526,115 ). Just in 2009, for the first time the exhibition "Un Certain Etat du Monde?" at the Garage Center for Contemporary art at the occasion of the Moscow Biennale of Contemporary Art attracted three times the number of visitors per day than the Tretyakov did with a thematic exhibition of flowers in Russian art (16). Garage seems to be the only institution that has adapted to contemporary standards of communi-cation and marketing of culture and the only one able to become a raw model and create a trickle down effect towards a new class of people who dream to participate in the new culture of "cultivated consumption".

Nikolay Ridnyi, Zero, Memorial plague, 2012, granite. Photo courtesy of the artist.

Art vs. Market

34

The closed nature of Russia still remains a problem for the development of the art market. The art market in Russia has for twenty years been a sort of phantasm on the wave of the new Russian economy that never bloomed. The market was at its zenith at the end of the 1980s. In 1983-84, competition was rather strong between German and American collectors, who where the first to discover the nonconformist art. In 1988, the Ministry of Culture partnered with Sotheby in a famous auction that generated more than GBP2 million. At this moment of international attention, the government lost an opportunity to set up a platform of interna-tional exchange for art (as happened in Spain after Franco, for example). After that a new wave of market appeared in 2006, but this was soon stifled by economic crises. Nowadays, the market seems to be in danger once again. Russia is the most undeveloped art market within the BRIC countries. Moscow presents a portfolio of approximately 20 galleries (compared to the 600 galleries of Berlin and 400 of Beijing (17)) that have almost no turnover (more than one gallery reports declare to have three to four stable collectors and the gallery supports its activity with parallel businesses(18) ). Three of the main galleries of the city (Guelman, XL Gallery and the Aidan Gallery) have recently announced their decision to reorient their com-mercial activity towards a non-profit model. The Moscow Art fair is small in size and still very local and closed to the international market. With revenues of just over 4 million euro (4.465 million euro) and 25,000 visitors (19), the fair pales in comparison with the Basel Art Fair, which generates of tens of millions of euros in revenue and has around 100,000 visitors. Phillips De Pury claims to have 100 clients in Russia (20) who buy contemporary art (compared with 10,000 in New York) . According to Pierre Brochet (21), the reasons for the backwardness of art markets are different: the absence of the figure of the president supporting arts and fairs, the fact that collectors see permanently exhibited in Moscow Museums art from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and not contemporary art and the claim that in such a materialistic culture, art often based on con-cepts, words and institutional and political critique is hardly appreciated .

17. http://www.culturalexchange-

cn.nl/mapping-china/visual-arts

18. Open Gallery / Paperwork

Gallery, Interview with the author,

26/05/2012

19. ART MOSCOW, International

Art Fair, Project History, 2011

20. Svetlana Marich, Interview

with the author, 1/03/2012

21. Pierre Brochet, Interview with

the author

14. Misiano, Viktor, Il sistema

dell’arte dell’autoritarismo glamour in

Scotini, Marco, No-Order, Art in a

Post-Fordist society, Archive Books,

Berlin, 2011

15. David Riff in Misiano, Viktor

/ Riff, David, Suspending Criticism:

Criticism in Suspense, Chto Delat

magazin (http://www.chtodelat.

org)

16. THE ART NEWSPAPER, No.

212, APRIL 2012. Exhibition and

Museum Attendance figure 2011.

Art vs. Mediation

The word "mediation" describes something quite unrelated to Russia, a society characterised by climatic and political extremes. While a program of public art has never been initiated by the Russian government, whenever art goes public, it does so in the form of a scandal or of a political manifesto.

If production seems to be the part of the system that is more underfunded and in danger of disappearing, mediation is definitely an aspect that is overfunded but in danger of shifting towards simple strategies of promotion. As Viktor Misiano explained well in his articles about the transformation of cultural infrastructure in the transitional period, the Soviet cultural intelligentsia disappeared over the course of a few years (14). The cultural industry is being constructed on the dismantling of the expert community and on the hiring of the entrepre-neurial one: critics, historians and scientists who gravitated to the art field have been soon replaced by managers and developers. The consequences have been the creation of a "positive mediation" (15) not based on criticism or intellectualism but just worried about the building of the infrastructure itself. The figure of the "curator", one of the most powerful actors in the western model of art societies, took some time to appear and to be organically integrated into the system. For this reason, exhibition practices were not consolidated as an act of construc-tion of the artists or the creation of discourse. Instead, it has often oscillated between an act of self-affirmation and political commentary.

To survive with such a weak system of mediation, on the one hand, artists have continued their practice of self promotion, becoming their own curator and in many cases acting as curators for their friends. On the other hand, private foundations have filled the gap left by the nearly inconsistent actions of art institutions. Private foundations have positioned them-selves as the main entity responsible for the exhibition and promotion of artists in Russia as well as abroad. Thanks to big capital, oligarchs are able to overcome the bureaucratic barriers and to take to Moscow International exhibitions, artists and curators; they are also able to send abroad Russian artists in international exhibitions. Even thought necessary for the rec-ognition of Russian artists (that still happen in the west), this manipulated system of import/export has appeared sometimes aggressive and criticized by the artists themselves.

The creation of a public art community and the enlargement of the principal art community has not been considered a priority on art institutions' agendas for a long time. They simply have not been interested in creating forums and engaging audiences. Wealthy Russian patrons for their part have not justified their support for the arts by invoking a larger objec-tive of bringing contemporary art to the masses (as it happened, for example, in the U.S. at the beginning of the twentieth century).Public interest in contemporary art does not even come near competing with public interest in traditional art. (In 2011 the Tretyakov Gallery registered 1,283,401 visitors while the Mos-cow Museum of Modern Art registered 526,115 ). Just in 2009, for the first time the exhibition "Un Certain Etat du Monde?" at the Garage Center for Contemporary art at the occasion of the Moscow Biennale of Contemporary Art attracted three times the number of visitors per day than the Tretyakov did with a thematic exhibition of flowers in Russian art (16). Garage seems to be the only institution that has adapted to contemporary standards of communi-cation and marketing of culture and the only one able to become a raw model and create a trickle down effect towards a new class of people who dream to participate in the new culture of "cultivated consumption".

Nikolay Ridnyi, Zero, Memorial plague, 2012, granite. Photo courtesy of the artist.

Art vs. Market

35

Fast-forward

Things now seem to be moving very fast in Moscow. A lot of upcoming private and govern-ment megaprojects include the contemporary arts in their agendas. The NCCA, the National Center for Contemporary Art, is waiting for an investment of $5 billion dollars from the state for his new building; The Garage Center for Contemporary Art will move by 2013 to Gorky Park in a newly renovated building designed by Rem Koolhaas. Shalva Breus, the director of the ArtChronika Foundation, has recently declared that he is attempting to open a Museum of Contemporary Russian Art in an abandoned Soviet cinema. The Moscow Department of Culture is forming a branch dedicated to Contemporary Art that is supposed to establish polices to regulate the field.

Will this new "ultra-rapid" turnover of the project-economy leave some time for reflection upon the choice of the management class? And will there be enough art to fill these spaces? Without any significant investment in the production of new artists these spaces will be forced to import art from abroad or to turn their activities into other kind of commercial businesses. How will be possible for Moscow to evolve a Contemporary Art System without producing artists and without generating any sustainable economy?

The art community is trying to find its answer to this question. The political turn of Putin's re-election seems to have generated a situation of new "potential chaos" and a clamor for change. As David Riff (22) said, in this time of re-politicization of Russian society some art-ists are gaining new sensibility, finding a new way of fighting in the situation to make their art relevant in a social way and they will be able to find their own context, forced to create a new system of values. Artists, moreover, understand that what is happening here is not so local but it connects with the major changes that are affecting the global art system and this gives them a new awareness and the potential for wider regard. Creative workers are feeling the necessity to fill the gap between the arts and the society and between the new and the old cultural infrastructure that for 20 years remained in suspension. Art workers are formulating new "corridors" to move dynamically into the system. Few professionals are thinking about how to create new workers' unions to discuss new rules of communication with the authori-ties about studios, grants, pensions and social care (23). Other professionals are organizing mobile educational platforms between art schools of traditional art and schools of contempo-rary art to promote mobility and exchange (24). A new young generation of artists is collabo-rating with the old state museums to energize them with new initiatives and content (25). At this turn, (which is different from the '90s) they are not alone but in some cases supported by private foundations, whose activity has also shifted towards the knowledge industry and educational projects. Now that even the private sector has finally engaged in a dialogue with the art community, the only missing agent of changes in the field is the Russian government. Will the authorities take advantage of this moment of chaos to make some structural changes to the cultural policies in support of the arts?

It would be crucial at this point to invest in the system, strengthening the main structural knots that are currently weak, in order to not lose the opportunity for rebirth as happened 20 years ago. Reinforcing the potential and the quality of art production is the main prior-ity. This is followed by the need to demolish the barriers to the outside world and cultural exchanges. And finally, it will be important To provide the separate realities with a ground to operate and share: this will be maybe the beginning of a new era when the "private" and the "public" will merge and collaborate on the "common" .

Bibliography

Arts education in the Russian Federation: building creative capacities in 21st century, Analytical Paper, Russian Institute for Cultural Research in collaboration with the Institute of Arts Education, Moscow 2011ART MOSCOW, International Art Fair, Project History, Moscow, 2011Council of Europe, Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, Russia, 13RU-8”, 2011Council of Europe, Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, Germany, 13RU-8”, 2011Ioffe, Julia, Letter From Moscow, Garage Mechanics, The New Yorker, New York, September 27, 2010Messana, Shannon, Russian Cultural Regulations, European University in Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, Imares, 2012Misiano, Viktor / Riff, David, Suspending Criticism: Criticism in Suspense, Chto Delat magazin (http://www.chtodelat.org)Misiano, Viktor, The Cultural Contradictions of the Tusovka, The Moscow Art Magazin, Moscow, 1998Ruutu, Katia, New Cultural Art Center in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, PhD Thesis, Helsinki School of Economic, Helsinki, 2010Scotini, Marco, No-Order. Art in a Post-Fordist society, Berlin, Archive Books, 2010 Shekova, Ekaterina, Changes in Russian museum attendance: 1980–2008, Department of Cultural Sciences, The National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), Moscow,2012The Manifesta Decade: Debates on Contemporary Art Exhibitions and Biennials in Post-Wall Europe, Edited by Barbara Vanderlinden and Elena Filipovic, Boston, MIT Press, 2006Tupitsyn, Viktor, The Museological Unconscious: Communal (Post) Modernism in Russia, Boston, The MIT Press, 2009

Experts

Joseph Backstein, Director of the ICA (Institute for Contemporary Art)Leonid Bazhanov, Director of the NCCA National Center of Contemporary ArtPierre Brochet, CollectorEkaterina Degot, Art Critic and Curator, Editor of the Art column of Openspace.ruAntonio Geusa, Art critic and Professor at the The Rodchenko Moscow School of Photography and MultimediaSvetlana Marich, Head of Phillips De PuryTeresa Mavika, Director of the V-A-C FoundationRoman Minaev, Professor at the The Rodchenko Moscow School of Photography and Multi-mediaViktor Misiano, Curator and writer, Director of the Moscow Art JournalNikolai Molok, Director of Development of Stella Art FoundationGeorgy Nikich, Art historian and curatorDavid Riff, Curator writer and professor, member of the art group Chto DelatVladimir Smirnov, Partner of the Vladimir Smirnov and Konstantin Sorokin FoundationArseniy Zhilyaev, Artist

22. David Riff, Interview with the

author, 15/02/2012

23. Arseniy Zhilyaev about the Art

Workers Union, Interview with

author.

24. Roman Minaev about the

project of Open Studio, Interview

with the author, 11/05/2012

25. See the project of The Pedagogi-

cal Poem at the Museum of Revolu-

tion curated by Arseniy Zhilyaev

(2012) and the exhibition The false

calculation presidium, at the Museum

of Business and Philantropy (2011)

curated by Anastasia Ryabova.

Both the events have been realised

thanks to the support of the V.A.C.

Foundation.

36

Fast-forward

Things now seem to be moving very fast in Moscow. A lot of upcoming private and govern-ment megaprojects include the contemporary arts in their agendas. The NCCA, the National Center for Contemporary Art, is waiting for an investment of $5 billion dollars from the state for his new building; The Garage Center for Contemporary Art will move by 2013 to Gorky Park in a newly renovated building designed by Rem Koolhaas. Shalva Breus, the director of the ArtChronika Foundation, has recently declared that he is attempting to open a Museum of Contemporary Russian Art in an abandoned Soviet cinema. The Moscow Department of Culture is forming a branch dedicated to Contemporary Art that is supposed to establish polices to regulate the field.

Will this new "ultra-rapid" turnover of the project-economy leave some time for reflection upon the choice of the management class? And will there be enough art to fill these spaces? Without any significant investment in the production of new artists these spaces will be forced to import art from abroad or to turn their activities into other kind of commercial businesses. How will be possible for Moscow to evolve a Contemporary Art System without producing artists and without generating any sustainable economy?

The art community is trying to find its answer to this question. The political turn of Putin's re-election seems to have generated a situation of new "potential chaos" and a clamor for change. As David Riff (22) said, in this time of re-politicization of Russian society some art-ists are gaining new sensibility, finding a new way of fighting in the situation to make their art relevant in a social way and they will be able to find their own context, forced to create a new system of values. Artists, moreover, understand that what is happening here is not so local but it connects with the major changes that are affecting the global art system and this gives them a new awareness and the potential for wider regard. Creative workers are feeling the necessity to fill the gap between the arts and the society and between the new and the old cultural infrastructure that for 20 years remained in suspension. Art workers are formulating new "corridors" to move dynamically into the system. Few professionals are thinking about how to create new workers' unions to discuss new rules of communication with the authori-ties about studios, grants, pensions and social care (23). Other professionals are organizing mobile educational platforms between art schools of traditional art and schools of contempo-rary art to promote mobility and exchange (24). A new young generation of artists is collabo-rating with the old state museums to energize them with new initiatives and content (25). At this turn, (which is different from the '90s) they are not alone but in some cases supported by private foundations, whose activity has also shifted towards the knowledge industry and educational projects. Now that even the private sector has finally engaged in a dialogue with the art community, the only missing agent of changes in the field is the Russian government. Will the authorities take advantage of this moment of chaos to make some structural changes to the cultural policies in support of the arts?

It would be crucial at this point to invest in the system, strengthening the main structural knots that are currently weak, in order to not lose the opportunity for rebirth as happened 20 years ago. Reinforcing the potential and the quality of art production is the main prior-ity. This is followed by the need to demolish the barriers to the outside world and cultural exchanges. And finally, it will be important To provide the separate realities with a ground to operate and share: this will be maybe the beginning of a new era when the "private" and the "public" will merge and collaborate on the "common" .

Bibliography

Arts education in the Russian Federation: building creative capacities in 21st century, Analytical Paper, Russian Institute for Cultural Research in collaboration with the Institute of Arts Education, Moscow 2011ART MOSCOW, International Art Fair, Project History, Moscow, 2011Council of Europe, Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, Russia, 13RU-8”, 2011Council of Europe, Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, Germany, 13RU-8”, 2011Ioffe, Julia, Letter From Moscow, Garage Mechanics, The New Yorker, New York, September 27, 2010Messana, Shannon, Russian Cultural Regulations, European University in Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, Imares, 2012Misiano, Viktor / Riff, David, Suspending Criticism: Criticism in Suspense, Chto Delat magazin (http://www.chtodelat.org)Misiano, Viktor, The Cultural Contradictions of the Tusovka, The Moscow Art Magazin, Moscow, 1998Ruutu, Katia, New Cultural Art Center in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, PhD Thesis, Helsinki School of Economic, Helsinki, 2010Scotini, Marco, No-Order. Art in a Post-Fordist society, Berlin, Archive Books, 2010 Shekova, Ekaterina, Changes in Russian museum attendance: 1980–2008, Department of Cultural Sciences, The National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), Moscow,2012The Manifesta Decade: Debates on Contemporary Art Exhibitions and Biennials in Post-Wall Europe, Edited by Barbara Vanderlinden and Elena Filipovic, Boston, MIT Press, 2006Tupitsyn, Viktor, The Museological Unconscious: Communal (Post) Modernism in Russia, Boston, The MIT Press, 2009

Experts

Joseph Backstein, Director of the ICA (Institute for Contemporary Art)Leonid Bazhanov, Director of the NCCA National Center of Contemporary ArtPierre Brochet, CollectorEkaterina Degot, Art Critic and Curator, Editor of the Art column of Openspace.ruAntonio Geusa, Art critic and Professor at the The Rodchenko Moscow School of Photography and MultimediaSvetlana Marich, Head of Phillips De PuryTeresa Mavika, Director of the V-A-C FoundationRoman Minaev, Professor at the The Rodchenko Moscow School of Photography and Multi-mediaViktor Misiano, Curator and writer, Director of the Moscow Art JournalNikolai Molok, Director of Development of Stella Art FoundationGeorgy Nikich, Art historian and curatorDavid Riff, Curator writer and professor, member of the art group Chto DelatVladimir Smirnov, Partner of the Vladimir Smirnov and Konstantin Sorokin FoundationArseniy Zhilyaev, Artist

22. David Riff, Interview with the

author, 15/02/2012

23. Arseniy Zhilyaev about the Art

Workers Union, Interview with

author.

24. Roman Minaev about the

project of Open Studio, Interview

with the author, 11/05/2012

25. See the project of The Pedagogi-

cal Poem at the Museum of Revolu-

tion curated by Arseniy Zhilyaev

(2012) and the exhibition The false

calculation presidium, at the Museum

of Business and Philantropy (2011)

curated by Anastasia Ryabova.

Both the events have been realised

thanks to the support of the V.A.C.

Foundation.

37

38

Extract from the article «Although Moscow is not Rio» at Gazeta.ru

As we are living in an era of cities, politicians and urbanists first and foremost endeavor to emulate successful concepts of urban development. The beginning of the year, as is well known, is the time when city rankings are drawn up. Around the world, methods developed by agencies Knight&Frank, Economist Intelligence and Mercer , using criteria such as safety, health, environmental standards and cost of living, are used not only as an instrument in urban planning and the improvement of cities' images (city branding), but they are also a factor used by many international firms to select a location for their business operations.

Moscow, as a rule, does not look stellar in these rankings. For living standards, Mercer assigned the city a ranking of 166, and for safety Moscow ranked even lower at 199. Moreover, according to these statistics, the city comes in at fifth place for most expensive accommodation in the world and at fourth place for most expensive city in the world. Tripadvisor--an influential resource on issues concerning private international tourism--believes that Moscow's restaurants, out of the entire global list, rank second to last, and for quality of service--third to last. The Mercer Quality of Life Survey analyzes around 400 cities using 39 factors. Among these are, for instance, variety of foodstuffs on offer, climate, susceptibility to riots, as well as natural disasters and opportunities for recreation. Outfits such as Mercer assert that they know the criteria that allows for quality to be "measured". But isn't there a contradiction in this -- to assess quality using quantitative methods? Doesn't every city have its own inherent quality, which cannot be judged by other cities' criteria?

Such statistical reports emerged during the process of globalization, with their significance growing mostly because firms with representatives around the world and international organizations need data on cost of living for their employees living in various countries. But the true imperfection of these reports is manifest in the fact that they are based on a universal perception of quality, which--despite globalization--does not exist in nature. The Chinese, Italians and Peruvians have their own conceptualization of what is good or horrible in their lives, which does not depend on ideality or the disrepair of infrastructure. Practically speaking, it is only really possible to assess the quality of living if a survey of the city's inhabitants is included. It is possible to imagine the costs and difficulties that would emerge in creating this sort of a survey of the 400 cities located between Buenos Aires and Seoul.

In this way, quality of life is still an indicator that is specific for each city. According to the Germans and French, for instance, it is said that the French work in order to live while the Germans live in order to work. Switzerland a few weeks ago rejected a referendum that would have increased the country's minimum paid holiday to six weeks a year. A sauna in Hong Kong or Nairobi seems more out of place than in St. Petersburg, and the Japanese are likely to never get used to grilled sausages and borscht.

Last fall in south Bhutan I was witness to the following story. There was a search for a peasant who a year ago, thanks to implementation of modern methods of land cultivation imported from China, managed to double the harvest. The government wanted to honor the successful peasant in the press, so as to awaken others' interest in this new method of cultivation. After a long search the peasant was found: he left his land and for a year hid away in a Buddhist monastery in order to relax with his earnings from the previous harvest. The principle of success and growth in well being, as it turned out, little concerned him, and he was not a good fit for government propaganda.

39

As such, it is practically impossible to measure the quality of cities. Undoubtedly, it depends on how the population approaches its relationship to the city. The city is not only homes and streets. The City is the people, wrote Shakespeare. Because of this, from city ratings it is possible to glean something even more important. It is no coincidence that the cities of Canada, Australia, and central and southern Europe top these lists. Vancouver, Sidney or Vienna is not as hip as others, but these cities managed to develop an exceptional self-awareness in the population. Much of that which works in Zurich, Amsterdam or Frankfurt works because it was initiated and realized by people and not government officials. The quality of living in a city is measured at the end of the day by how personally the population is involved in the formation of the city.

As can be imagined, this is not accomplished in one day. The government should recognize the importance of involving the population, and residents will only get involved when they believe it's worth it.

Taking into account the events of this spring, it is worth noting that Moscow and other Russian cities' chances already aren't so bad. According to surveys, after the last elections a third of demonstrators stated their preparedness to take part in the work of local governments. As such, you can afford a certain amount of optimism. Another survey showed that two thirds of those surveyed consider themselves happy people. Perhaps forecasts of future standards of living in Moscow are more comforting than current city rankings' assertions.

Michael Schindhelm, April 4, 2012

32

In times of globalization, there is demand and even need to have some-thing to offer, to be “for something” and to take up a distinct position, which is expressed in a short, suc-cinct message that is easy to compre-hend and human-friendly. This trend applies to everything: individuals, commercial organizations, political movements and cities. The issue of city branding will be discussed in this project. Attempting to develop a method of place branding that is not top-down as usual, this project takes a bottom-up approach, based on so-cial engagement, actual benefits and advantages - not the imaginary. This is the way to celebrate local identity,

and thereby build a real, “honest” image and brand. This project endeav-ors to prove that these are the real criteria of place branding despite eve-rything that has been said so many times before.

Place branding is the representation of identity, building favorable inter-nal and external images that lead to brand satisfaction and loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality and other proprietary brand assets. Inter-nal images concern those who deliver the experience while external image is related to visitors’ experiences.1In his book “Cultuur in de Citymar-keting”, T.B.J Noorrdman of Erasmus

University in Rotterdam writes about city branding: “Place identity. We shall often refer to the “true identity of a place”, by which we mean the full set of unique characteristics or set of meanings that exist in a place and its culture at a given point in time, nev-ertheless realizing that this identity is subject to change and might include various fragmented identities.” Some practical moorings are provided by Noordman in his listing of structural (location and history), semi-static (size, physical appearance and inner mentality) and coloring (symbolism, communication and behavior) ele-ments of place identity.2

HypothesisResidents’ engagement in collaborative activity on a local level is the main tool shaping place identity and thus creating a strong and sustainable brand.

The topic of city and territory branding is a current trend on everyone’s lips. At the same time, the majority of existing cases is not successful enough or can even be considered a failure because of a complete “top-downness” of branding strategies. This work aims to identify an alternative method and answer the following questions: what is the resident’s role in a territory branding system; could joint resident activity become the main instrument of brand formation? This project proposes a method for organizing local residents’ involvement in one Moscow district using social activity in order to reinforce the identity and brand of a place.

The city brand is an element of identity, forcing to value on a hu-man living in a place, and forcing the human to value the place he lives in. It is a significant element, helping to preserve the culture, history and identity of a certain place. More and more, organizations are becoming the initiators of a branding process. In ad-dition to tourism departments, these organizations include departments of culture (in this way solving their own problems), consulting companies, schools and others. This topic is also frequently highlighted in the media.Currently, the territory-branding instrument is frequently used for

marketing or as a means to sell an artificially-created image to tourists in order to raise sales and/or fuel investments. Political issues are also important. I, therefore, believe that the main driver in territory branding is simply a fear of failing to follow the trend. Undoubtedly, not all the motives behind this approach are that obvious. Sometimes, city, country or regional brand creation becomes merely an excuse for the abuse of state or local budget. In other cases, brand-ing is a matter of self-affirmation for local elites. This formation is true not only for world-known cases of territory

branding but for Moscow also.Usually, a team of creators (not necessarily professionals) is formed and given strict deadlines and a very precise mandate: at a minimum create a logo, slogan, web-site and advertising campaign. As incredible as it may seem, in a competitive battle for uniqueness, the only thing we re-ally get is standardization. Advertising campaigns and flagship projects, upon which millions and sometimes bil-lions are spent from the city budget, are frequently inorganic, causing disagreement and protests and are rejected by residents.

Social Place Branding Marina Laba

Equality and inorganic approach in branding strategy

Logos, created on common principles:

Examples of unaccepted branding by residents and equality in slogans

“Opportunities without borders”

Ekaterinburg

“Small town, big heart” Burton

“Donetsk loves you”Donetsk

“The city that loves you” Tbilisi

“City of opportunities” Dnepropetrovsk

“Many stories, one heart” Thessaloniki

“With loves and care”Saki

etc.

1

40

32

In times of globalization, there is demand and even need to have some-thing to offer, to be “for something” and to take up a distinct position, which is expressed in a short, suc-cinct message that is easy to compre-hend and human-friendly. This trend applies to everything: individuals, commercial organizations, political movements and cities. The issue of city branding will be discussed in this project. Attempting to develop a method of place branding that is not top-down as usual, this project takes a bottom-up approach, based on so-cial engagement, actual benefits and advantages - not the imaginary. This is the way to celebrate local identity,

and thereby build a real, “honest” image and brand. This project endeav-ors to prove that these are the real criteria of place branding despite eve-rything that has been said so many times before.

Place branding is the representation of identity, building favorable inter-nal and external images that lead to brand satisfaction and loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality and other proprietary brand assets. Inter-nal images concern those who deliver the experience while external image is related to visitors’ experiences.1In his book “Cultuur in de Citymar-keting”, T.B.J Noorrdman of Erasmus

University in Rotterdam writes about city branding: “Place identity. We shall often refer to the “true identity of a place”, by which we mean the full set of unique characteristics or set of meanings that exist in a place and its culture at a given point in time, nev-ertheless realizing that this identity is subject to change and might include various fragmented identities.” Some practical moorings are provided by Noordman in his listing of structural (location and history), semi-static (size, physical appearance and inner mentality) and coloring (symbolism, communication and behavior) ele-ments of place identity.2

HypothesisResidents’ engagement in collaborative activity on a local level is the main tool shaping place identity and thus creating a strong and sustainable brand.

The topic of city and territory branding is a current trend on everyone’s lips. At the same time, the majority of existing cases is not successful enough or can even be considered a failure because of a complete “top-downness” of branding strategies. This work aims to identify an alternative method and answer the following questions: what is the resident’s role in a territory branding system; could joint resident activity become the main instrument of brand formation? This project proposes a method for organizing local residents’ involvement in one Moscow district using social activity in order to reinforce the identity and brand of a place.

The city brand is an element of identity, forcing to value on a hu-man living in a place, and forcing the human to value the place he lives in. It is a significant element, helping to preserve the culture, history and identity of a certain place. More and more, organizations are becoming the initiators of a branding process. In ad-dition to tourism departments, these organizations include departments of culture (in this way solving their own problems), consulting companies, schools and others. This topic is also frequently highlighted in the media.Currently, the territory-branding instrument is frequently used for

marketing or as a means to sell an artificially-created image to tourists in order to raise sales and/or fuel investments. Political issues are also important. I, therefore, believe that the main driver in territory branding is simply a fear of failing to follow the trend. Undoubtedly, not all the motives behind this approach are that obvious. Sometimes, city, country or regional brand creation becomes merely an excuse for the abuse of state or local budget. In other cases, brand-ing is a matter of self-affirmation for local elites. This formation is true not only for world-known cases of territory

branding but for Moscow also.Usually, a team of creators (not necessarily professionals) is formed and given strict deadlines and a very precise mandate: at a minimum create a logo, slogan, web-site and advertising campaign. As incredible as it may seem, in a competitive battle for uniqueness, the only thing we re-ally get is standardization. Advertising campaigns and flagship projects, upon which millions and sometimes bil-lions are spent from the city budget, are frequently inorganic, causing disagreement and protests and are rejected by residents.

Social Place Branding Marina Laba

Equality and inorganic approach in branding strategy

Logos, created on common principles:

Examples of unaccepted branding by residents and equality in slogans

“Opportunities without borders”

Ekaterinburg

“Small town, big heart” Burton

“Donetsk loves you”Donetsk

“The city that loves you” Tbilisi

“City of opportunities” Dnepropetrovsk

“Many stories, one heart” Thessaloniki

“With loves and care”Saki

etc.

1

41

54

For now, let’s “zoom in” to take a look at Moscow’s position in the discussion on territory branding.It is useful to use a timeline to demon-strate the evolution of the authorities’ relation to the subject.In creating the image of Russia in the 1990s, government agencies led by the President were involved as well as rep-resentatives of businesses and NGOs.Trends of democratization, develop-ing civil society, market economy, etc influenced Russia’s image at the time. The process of modernization that started in Russia at that time led to the formation of a positive image (a multi-party system, free elections, rights and freedoms, freedom of speech). Internal processes (political and economic insta-bility, the war in Chechnya, corruption, lack of effective social protection) did damage to the country’s image.During the early 90s, a pro-Western

course was charted. A desire to aban-don the Soviet past and take up the path of democratic reforms can be seen in official statements and speeches by political leaders of our country as well as foreign leaders and in media reports.From 1996, the strategy was not as effective as in the early 90s. Russia’s desire to play a more independent role and protect national interests was not enthusiastically received by foreign audiences.

In 2003, the growing globalization wave resulted in a shift from the tendency to form territory images to territory marketing and branding. The subject of this process becomes the city, and the city becomes a product with competitive advantages that could be sold. Moscow starts to think this way, developing new projects for city brand development. Actions have

become more concrete and for now there are a lot of ambitious, precise plans.

Certainly, the failure of attempts to build a sustainable and solid image of the country/city was due to failure of the self-identification process or, look-ing at the situation from a very broad perspective, failure of the nation-building process. It is not possible to transmit an image of something when that image does not even exist in the minds of the nation or the city’s inhab-itants. In my opinion, all attempts by advertising firms or PR agencies to create an image from thin air only lead to nothing. Real, effective and sustain-able branding originates from being, not seeming. This is true not only for Russia, but for any country and any place in the world.

In the case of Moscow’s branding, there was no integrated or complex approach. It is useful to review the international ratings for Moscow in order to see how Russia’s capital is seen from the outside. In my opinion, these ratings are mostly unreliable and often based on strange and not-so-evident assumptions. More importantly, they are not diagnostic in-struments, but media phenomena that influence perception of the city.

The strongest points are mostly seen in education, culture, leisure and business, but it is interesting to note that Mos-cow ranks in the last place for protection of intellectual property. The city’s weakest positions are rather varied, but it is possible to group them in several categories: conditions for employees, transport, health care and international open-ness.

Moscow in ratings

Moscow level

42

54

For now, let’s “zoom in” to take a look at Moscow’s position in the discussion on territory branding.It is useful to use a timeline to demon-strate the evolution of the authorities’ relation to the subject.In creating the image of Russia in the 1990s, government agencies led by the President were involved as well as rep-resentatives of businesses and NGOs.Trends of democratization, develop-ing civil society, market economy, etc influenced Russia’s image at the time. The process of modernization that started in Russia at that time led to the formation of a positive image (a multi-party system, free elections, rights and freedoms, freedom of speech). Internal processes (political and economic insta-bility, the war in Chechnya, corruption, lack of effective social protection) did damage to the country’s image.During the early 90s, a pro-Western

course was charted. A desire to aban-don the Soviet past and take up the path of democratic reforms can be seen in official statements and speeches by political leaders of our country as well as foreign leaders and in media reports.From 1996, the strategy was not as effective as in the early 90s. Russia’s desire to play a more independent role and protect national interests was not enthusiastically received by foreign audiences.

In 2003, the growing globalization wave resulted in a shift from the tendency to form territory images to territory marketing and branding. The subject of this process becomes the city, and the city becomes a product with competitive advantages that could be sold. Moscow starts to think this way, developing new projects for city brand development. Actions have

become more concrete and for now there are a lot of ambitious, precise plans.

Certainly, the failure of attempts to build a sustainable and solid image of the country/city was due to failure of the self-identification process or, look-ing at the situation from a very broad perspective, failure of the nation-building process. It is not possible to transmit an image of something when that image does not even exist in the minds of the nation or the city’s inhab-itants. In my opinion, all attempts by advertising firms or PR agencies to create an image from thin air only lead to nothing. Real, effective and sustain-able branding originates from being, not seeming. This is true not only for Russia, but for any country and any place in the world.

In the case of Moscow’s branding, there was no integrated or complex approach. It is useful to review the international ratings for Moscow in order to see how Russia’s capital is seen from the outside. In my opinion, these ratings are mostly unreliable and often based on strange and not-so-evident assumptions. More importantly, they are not diagnostic in-struments, but media phenomena that influence perception of the city.

The strongest points are mostly seen in education, culture, leisure and business, but it is interesting to note that Mos-cow ranks in the last place for protection of intellectual property. The city’s weakest positions are rather varied, but it is possible to group them in several categories: conditions for employees, transport, health care and international open-ness.

Moscow in ratings

Moscow level

43

76

Moscow is pursuing status. It tries to be “the most”: the most expensive and luxuri-ous, the biggest in square, building con-struction. These characteristics are what is known about Moscow around the world.

As we can see, Moscow’s image leaves much to be desired. The city’s weakest points are pointed out by ratings but can-not be resolved in a minute. These issues require a complex approach, but some of them can be improved on a local level: language capability, employees’ quality of life, crime, end-of-life care and green space as a percentage of total area. The rankings are not ultimate indicators, but they are just one more argument in favor of starting to change the image at a local level, tackling one issue at a time.

Here are examples that were widely discussed. In sum, around 77 million rubles were invested in these branding campaigns. There were a lot of critical comments on these products, stemming from mistakes in translation, outdated design and badly-composed suggestions for tourist routes, and inability to appeal to different audiences. Also, there were some bottom-up initiatives that were considered unsuccessful and were never used. These examples show that the city lacked a complex approach to build-ing the city brand and that there is no authority responsible for it. The results of these attempts were once again derived from branding system and were not all encompassing. They also demonstrate a stereotypical and superficial way of think-ing about what the city brand means.

unemployment <1%

75% of Russia

n financia

l

flows intersectio

n

10% of world

’s billio

naires live here

assassin

s are more cheaper than in over E

uropean capitals

bodyguards are cheaper t

han in other megaciti

es

“Moscow City” - t

he most e

xpensive constru

ction in a curren

t world

spaces rental on Tversk

aya Street is more expen-

sive than on the Avenue des Champs-É

lysées

I propose to start with the micro-level of Moscow districts as

The citizen has an immediate close connection to the placeCitizens are emotionally im-mersed in the area Sense of neighborhood is decreasing on such a scaleOriginal “senses” and values are not sufficiently highlight-ed and open

Actions on a local level are about being, not seeming. The local level al-lows us to address real life concepts. Moreover, action at the local level allows us to build the brand from the “grassroots” level, simultaneously en-gaging citizens and making sure that the final result will not be rejected by the people. This approach insures that residents will advocate for the results on a deeper level, thereby creating a real, long-lasting brand that

never falls short of expectations.As an illustrative example, the Izmailovo district was chosen. It is well suited to a pilot version and to checking model-scheme because of the district’s various cultural and his-torical layers, its diversity of natural resources (parks, gardens, basins, etc.), differentiated social structure, availability of information and acces-sibility to people (authorities, locals, experts)

~

~

~

~

Moscow in the first lines of other ratings

Attempts to brand Moscow

Microlevel of Moscow districts

A decision about place identity usually comes from the top, almost completely ignoring locals’ interests and opinions. But what is the place if not the people living there? What is the main source of identity if not life itself?

Thus, the following main questions are posed by this project: what is the resident’s role in a territory branding system? Could joint

resident activity become the main instrument in brand formation?

There are few examples of projects that successfully work with residents and produce an image that appeals to both residents and outcomers. The Neukölln district in Berlin has a reputa-tion for its numerous migrants from Turkey and India, and the level of unemployment in the district exceeds the city average. German agency “In:polis” discovered the migrant women’s needlework talent, and

it has organized a creative platform to con-nect these women with Berlin’s young fash-ion designers. Together, they have begun to produce a fashion line, and fashion shows, workshops and show rooms were organized in the district. In this way, an innovative integration model for migrants has been shaped, and the unemployment problem has been resolved to a certain degree. Public events have attracted the attention of media, bloggers, the creative class and locals, changing the place’s reputation with outside viewers. Now, the district attracts creative industry workers and has a reputa-tion for being a place that is friendly and tolerant to migrants, who in turn feel as though they have a significant role to play in the community. The traditional branding process for a place is “overturned” when locals are not merely presented with the opportunity to participate in an activity whose importance is determined from the top-down with the aim of building status or improving tourism and employee appeal, but when locals are connected to an idea that is of interest to them.

Place branding is a system of actions and instruments for territory im-age change through the translation of ideas and the formation of place identity.Social territory branding is a branding type. In this type of branding, identity is formed by working with residents on an idea that they are initially interested in and that is also culturally and historically con-nected to the place. As a result of social place branding, residents benefit from each other, celebrating a common idea that eventually leads to changes in the place’s reputation and image and increased attractive-ness to an outside observer

44

76

Moscow is pursuing status. It tries to be “the most”: the most expensive and luxuri-ous, the biggest in square, building con-struction. These characteristics are what is known about Moscow around the world.

As we can see, Moscow’s image leaves much to be desired. The city’s weakest points are pointed out by ratings but can-not be resolved in a minute. These issues require a complex approach, but some of them can be improved on a local level: language capability, employees’ quality of life, crime, end-of-life care and green space as a percentage of total area. The rankings are not ultimate indicators, but they are just one more argument in favor of starting to change the image at a local level, tackling one issue at a time.

Here are examples that were widely discussed. In sum, around 77 million rubles were invested in these branding campaigns. There were a lot of critical comments on these products, stemming from mistakes in translation, outdated design and badly-composed suggestions for tourist routes, and inability to appeal to different audiences. Also, there were some bottom-up initiatives that were considered unsuccessful and were never used. These examples show that the city lacked a complex approach to build-ing the city brand and that there is no authority responsible for it. The results of these attempts were once again derived from branding system and were not all encompassing. They also demonstrate a stereotypical and superficial way of think-ing about what the city brand means.

unemployment <1%

75% of Russia

n financia

l

flows intersectio

n

10% of world

’s billio

naires live here

assassin

s are more cheaper than in over E

uropean capitals

bodyguards are cheaper t

han in other megaciti

es

“Moscow City” - t

he most e

xpensive constru

ction in a curren

t world

spaces rental on Tversk

aya Street is more expen-

sive than on the Avenue des Champs-É

lysées

I propose to start with the micro-level of Moscow districts as

The citizen has an immediate close connection to the placeCitizens are emotionally im-mersed in the area Sense of neighborhood is decreasing on such a scaleOriginal “senses” and values are not sufficiently highlight-ed and open

Actions on a local level are about being, not seeming. The local level al-lows us to address real life concepts. Moreover, action at the local level allows us to build the brand from the “grassroots” level, simultaneously en-gaging citizens and making sure that the final result will not be rejected by the people. This approach insures that residents will advocate for the results on a deeper level, thereby creating a real, long-lasting brand that

never falls short of expectations.As an illustrative example, the Izmailovo district was chosen. It is well suited to a pilot version and to checking model-scheme because of the district’s various cultural and his-torical layers, its diversity of natural resources (parks, gardens, basins, etc.), differentiated social structure, availability of information and acces-sibility to people (authorities, locals, experts)

~

~

~

~

Moscow in the first lines of other ratings

Attempts to brand Moscow

Microlevel of Moscow districts

A decision about place identity usually comes from the top, almost completely ignoring locals’ interests and opinions. But what is the place if not the people living there? What is the main source of identity if not life itself?

Thus, the following main questions are posed by this project: what is the resident’s role in a territory branding system? Could joint

resident activity become the main instrument in brand formation?

There are few examples of projects that successfully work with residents and produce an image that appeals to both residents and outcomers. The Neukölln district in Berlin has a reputa-tion for its numerous migrants from Turkey and India, and the level of unemployment in the district exceeds the city average. German agency “In:polis” discovered the migrant women’s needlework talent, and

it has organized a creative platform to con-nect these women with Berlin’s young fash-ion designers. Together, they have begun to produce a fashion line, and fashion shows, workshops and show rooms were organized in the district. In this way, an innovative integration model for migrants has been shaped, and the unemployment problem has been resolved to a certain degree. Public events have attracted the attention of media, bloggers, the creative class and locals, changing the place’s reputation with outside viewers. Now, the district attracts creative industry workers and has a reputa-tion for being a place that is friendly and tolerant to migrants, who in turn feel as though they have a significant role to play in the community. The traditional branding process for a place is “overturned” when locals are not merely presented with the opportunity to participate in an activity whose importance is determined from the top-down with the aim of building status or improving tourism and employee appeal, but when locals are connected to an idea that is of interest to them.

Place branding is a system of actions and instruments for territory im-age change through the translation of ideas and the formation of place identity.Social territory branding is a branding type. In this type of branding, identity is formed by working with residents on an idea that they are initially interested in and that is also culturally and historically con-nected to the place. As a result of social place branding, residents benefit from each other, celebrating a common idea that eventually leads to changes in the place’s reputation and image and increased attractive-ness to an outside observer

45

98

Contemporary Russian society is absolutely atomized and incapable of joint action in “non-extreme” situ-ations. Horizontal connections are almost absent here, and the tendency for group self-organization has been forced out historically. This situation is rather specific to Russia, and it is deeply rooted in the very nature of the Soviet regime and its attempt to be a really total space, outside of which nothing else really exists. This led to the degradation of the society’s ability to create horizontal links. As Lev Gudkov, Boris Dubin and Nataya Zorkaya put it in “The Post-Soviet Per-son and Civil Society”3 , the “correct” Soviet citizen could not imagine any-thing outside the state. Non-govern-mental medicine, education, science, literature, economy, industry are either impossible or as it turned out later during the post-Soviet period are non-legitimate, defective institu-tions. He belongs to the state entirely and depends on it. State forms of reward and social control are his only reference points. The state here

means not an institution separated from the society but an entity tend-ing to embrace all the aspects of a human life”. The Soviet state tended to mediate all peer-to-peer social interactions in order to control them and this (though not only this) led to the atrophy of solidarity and ability to perform collective acts. For example, according to the Caux Round Table 2009 Social Capital Achievement Rankings4 , the Russian Federation holds the hundredth position in the

overall rating. Boris Dubin of the Levada Center noted in a comment for Ria Novosti that today “a person in Russia is either not linked to other human beings or these links are ex-tremely weak or he/she does not rely on these links, does not value them and has no intent to develop solidar-ity or integrity with anyone except family members” .5

All these complications make it dif-ficult to use the kind of motivations seen in the aforementioned Berlin project for Neukölln. The circle of common activities that inhabitants are interested in participating in is very limited. Therefore, we can find topics that allow us to organize social activity almost from scratch.

According to the paper on a survey conducted by FOM, only 26% of respondents have ever participated in socially-useful activities for free during last ten years, and only half of this 26% has participated as a vol-unteer (that is, not as a member) in the activities of a non-governmental organization (NGO). A majority of residents approve of volunteer work although they are uncertain about its potency (48% believe NGO work holds benefits, 22% – does not hold ben-efits, 30% – difficult to answer). The majority is not ready to participate in volunteer work).

Social engagement

1. The physical components of the terri-tory (streets, avenues, buildings, natural resources, views, landscape, area plan) it is important to understand these elements as a platform for activities 2. Intangible context (historical/cul-tural subtext)it is important to understand the vari-ous levels of historical narrative that is related to the territory and familiar to locals or, conversely, hidden from them.

3. Social component (social groups, local heroes and activities of interest, educational institutions, organizations and enterprises):this component serves as an index of common interests and defines participants

4. Also, in order to have the complete picture, it is useful to study the already promoted and formed images for the place and the stereotypes surrounding it

As a result of this complex analysis, points that are capable of being con-nected in each of the components are emphasized. They become the apexes of triangle, which in turn form the platform for activity. Presumably, the model is universal and applicable for different districts, places, and ter-ritories.

As residents are more likely to be united not around a place, but around an idea6, it is necessary to formulate this idea and to inspire people to participate in related activities. So what are the criteria for choosing a topic that could unite residents and subsequently produce a topic that would lend itself to brand formation and a new image for the place?

1. Start with the roots! (ease of implementation, topic of interest)

It is useless to try initially to inspire people to fix a closed road on their own, for example, or to resolve an is-sue with parking near a house. In the current situation and on the existing level of social interaction, it is more reasonable to propose participation in solving some small problem with simple actions that are available to everyone. Also, it is necessary to understand which particular joint activity could provide motivation and genuine interest for participants.

2. Place (a shared, public space near private space)

We can assume that the platform for this type of activity should be some common, shared public space that is an important component of the area’s infrastructure and is noticeable and significant in its general image. At the same time, this space should be included in the circle of emotional engagement of every resident.

3. The topic should be histori-cally and culturally connected to the place, highlighting and formulating its identity

A scheme to collect data for this point is presented below.

Criteria for choosing the topic for residents’ consociation

Social place branding model

To define the topic around which it is possible to organize activity, participants and context, the following scheme-model was composed. The main components of the scheme:

46

98

Contemporary Russian society is absolutely atomized and incapable of joint action in “non-extreme” situ-ations. Horizontal connections are almost absent here, and the tendency for group self-organization has been forced out historically. This situation is rather specific to Russia, and it is deeply rooted in the very nature of the Soviet regime and its attempt to be a really total space, outside of which nothing else really exists. This led to the degradation of the society’s ability to create horizontal links. As Lev Gudkov, Boris Dubin and Nataya Zorkaya put it in “The Post-Soviet Per-son and Civil Society”3 , the “correct” Soviet citizen could not imagine any-thing outside the state. Non-govern-mental medicine, education, science, literature, economy, industry are either impossible or as it turned out later during the post-Soviet period are non-legitimate, defective institu-tions. He belongs to the state entirely and depends on it. State forms of reward and social control are his only reference points. The state here

means not an institution separated from the society but an entity tend-ing to embrace all the aspects of a human life”. The Soviet state tended to mediate all peer-to-peer social interactions in order to control them and this (though not only this) led to the atrophy of solidarity and ability to perform collective acts. For example, according to the Caux Round Table 2009 Social Capital Achievement Rankings4 , the Russian Federation holds the hundredth position in the

overall rating. Boris Dubin of the Levada Center noted in a comment for Ria Novosti that today “a person in Russia is either not linked to other human beings or these links are ex-tremely weak or he/she does not rely on these links, does not value them and has no intent to develop solidar-ity or integrity with anyone except family members” .5

All these complications make it dif-ficult to use the kind of motivations seen in the aforementioned Berlin project for Neukölln. The circle of common activities that inhabitants are interested in participating in is very limited. Therefore, we can find topics that allow us to organize social activity almost from scratch.

According to the paper on a survey conducted by FOM, only 26% of respondents have ever participated in socially-useful activities for free during last ten years, and only half of this 26% has participated as a vol-unteer (that is, not as a member) in the activities of a non-governmental organization (NGO). A majority of residents approve of volunteer work although they are uncertain about its potency (48% believe NGO work holds benefits, 22% – does not hold ben-efits, 30% – difficult to answer). The majority is not ready to participate in volunteer work).

Social engagement

1. The physical components of the terri-tory (streets, avenues, buildings, natural resources, views, landscape, area plan) it is important to understand these elements as a platform for activities 2. Intangible context (historical/cul-tural subtext)it is important to understand the vari-ous levels of historical narrative that is related to the territory and familiar to locals or, conversely, hidden from them.

3. Social component (social groups, local heroes and activities of interest, educational institutions, organizations and enterprises):this component serves as an index of common interests and defines participants

4. Also, in order to have the complete picture, it is useful to study the already promoted and formed images for the place and the stereotypes surrounding it

As a result of this complex analysis, points that are capable of being con-nected in each of the components are emphasized. They become the apexes of triangle, which in turn form the platform for activity. Presumably, the model is universal and applicable for different districts, places, and ter-ritories.

As residents are more likely to be united not around a place, but around an idea6, it is necessary to formulate this idea and to inspire people to participate in related activities. So what are the criteria for choosing a topic that could unite residents and subsequently produce a topic that would lend itself to brand formation and a new image for the place?

1. Start with the roots! (ease of implementation, topic of interest)

It is useless to try initially to inspire people to fix a closed road on their own, for example, or to resolve an is-sue with parking near a house. In the current situation and on the existing level of social interaction, it is more reasonable to propose participation in solving some small problem with simple actions that are available to everyone. Also, it is necessary to understand which particular joint activity could provide motivation and genuine interest for participants.

2. Place (a shared, public space near private space)

We can assume that the platform for this type of activity should be some common, shared public space that is an important component of the area’s infrastructure and is noticeable and significant in its general image. At the same time, this space should be included in the circle of emotional engagement of every resident.

3. The topic should be histori-cally and culturally connected to the place, highlighting and formulating its identity

A scheme to collect data for this point is presented below.

Criteria for choosing the topic for residents’ consociation

Social place branding model

To define the topic around which it is possible to organize activity, participants and context, the following scheme-model was composed. The main components of the scheme:

47

1110

Dating back to imperial times, experi-ments in cultivating exotic varieties of plants, vegetables, fruits, flowers and trees were held at the artificial island in Izmailovo Park. We can point to a trend of developing horticulture in the area as there are several narratives related to this activity specifically. Of note, there is the Landscape Design College in Izmailovo. The only school for landscape design in Moscow, the

Landscape Design College in Izmailovo graduates about 300 technicians every year. The State Farm of Decorative Gardening also resonates with this theme. Specifically, this institution’s Lilac Boulevard and gardens are con-nected to the story of Kolesnikov, the breeder who cultivated more than 300 varieties of lilacs. During the Khrush-chev administration, Kolesnikov was asked to transfer his garden to Lilac

Boulevard in Izmailovo; many of the seedlings were lost. According to infor-mation from blogs, Lilac Boulevard and other places with lilac trees throughout the area are residents’ favorite places. Until recently, greenhouses were located on the territory of Izmailovo Park, and college students conducted workshops there. These greenhouses have since been demolished.

The aim of a project: to organize con-ditions that will inspire local residents to take on yard improvements and lilac planting, thereby combining their ef-forts and creating a purpose for com-munication, that subsequently could lead to changes to and modification of the district’s image.

To create a reason for residents to communicate about the lilac stories in the early stages, I think an intrigu-ing point and precondition for myth formation would be to send lilac seeds (the closest analog here is Kateřina Šedá’s project «For Every Dog a Differ-ent Master»8 ).Then, instructions for planting the seeds would be sent.Later, college students studying land-scape design could be asked to choose one of the district’s courts and to sug-gest a draft plan for landscaping with lilac bushes (as part of their course work). The resulting landscaping plan with a recognizable view could

be compiled into a small album that could be sent to the residents of the yard - to paint a picture with recogniz-able view that shows potential and is attractive. It is also possible to post the pictures an open area for participants to make proposals.

Communication: during the final stage, close to the time of planting, participants will receive a game plan/instructions. All necessary elements are distributed to the participants (instruments are held by one, fertilizer by another, a detailed plan for planting - by the third and so on). Thus, partici-pants will need to collect all the neces-sary components: making exchanges, going to each other’s homes or making preliminary arrangements. In this way, we obtain an excellent opportunity for communication. For a proper fit in the end, college students, gardeners and scholars will also be involved.Motivation: At the conclusion of the project, a small yard festival with mov-

ies about the lilacs could be staged, workshops (various lilac products could be prepared, such as jam, liqueurs and perfume), food kiosks, photo exhibitions and stories about Kolesnikov.

These are options in the case of suc-cess and residents’ responsiveness. Moreover, there is a reward: resolu-tion of one of the existing problems in the yard.In condominiums (“cooperativny dom”), it is possible to organize gar-dens on rooftops. Alternatively, in the same way we can green balconies.

Instead of mailing materials to partici-pants, it is maybe worthwhile to use a website as a communication platform. After registration, the visitor becomes a participant and receives all the nec-essary information and materials. The advantage gained from this approach is the ability to download various formats of content.

1. To start with the roots! (ease of imple-mentation, topic of interest)

«Unified action to care for and recover urban public spaces, such as subbot-niki, involve the participation of a large number of people. Subbotniki started as an act of voluntary non-binding work but quickly became compulsory in the USSR. But in recent years, people have begun to organize in large num-bers in volun¬tarily efforts to clean up public city spaces.»7

In April 2012, 2,2 million Moscow residents participated in subbotniki, or roughly 18% of the entire city popula-tion. In comparison, around 100,000 people participated in opposition ral-lies, 15,000 people attend lectures per year and 5,000 Muscovites run mara-thons in May). Recently, volunteer or-ganizations for territory improvement have appeared in parks for example.

2. “Place”To increase the degree of responsibil-ity for common, shared space, it is necessary to start with the area that is adjacent to private living space: the yard. Currently, the yard territory has an uncertain status. It seems to be common, but at the same time it belongs to no one. Based on results of the FOM study, a majority of respond-ents are satisfied with their yard con-ditions, 61% once a year participate in its improvement and repair. An over-whelming majority, 77%, are ready to participate in subbotniki and actions directed at improving the surrounding areas if they were organized.

3. The topic, historically and cultur-ally connected to the place, highlight-ing and formulating its identity

Thus, the topic of breeding and gardening here is rather pronounced on different historical levels. For this reason, it seems suitable for uniting residents around it and for identifica-tion with participants

Correspondence to criteria The Izmailovo lilac

Izmailovo case

48

1110

Dating back to imperial times, experi-ments in cultivating exotic varieties of plants, vegetables, fruits, flowers and trees were held at the artificial island in Izmailovo Park. We can point to a trend of developing horticulture in the area as there are several narratives related to this activity specifically. Of note, there is the Landscape Design College in Izmailovo. The only school for landscape design in Moscow, the

Landscape Design College in Izmailovo graduates about 300 technicians every year. The State Farm of Decorative Gardening also resonates with this theme. Specifically, this institution’s Lilac Boulevard and gardens are con-nected to the story of Kolesnikov, the breeder who cultivated more than 300 varieties of lilacs. During the Khrush-chev administration, Kolesnikov was asked to transfer his garden to Lilac

Boulevard in Izmailovo; many of the seedlings were lost. According to infor-mation from blogs, Lilac Boulevard and other places with lilac trees throughout the area are residents’ favorite places. Until recently, greenhouses were located on the territory of Izmailovo Park, and college students conducted workshops there. These greenhouses have since been demolished.

The aim of a project: to organize con-ditions that will inspire local residents to take on yard improvements and lilac planting, thereby combining their ef-forts and creating a purpose for com-munication, that subsequently could lead to changes to and modification of the district’s image.

To create a reason for residents to communicate about the lilac stories in the early stages, I think an intrigu-ing point and precondition for myth formation would be to send lilac seeds (the closest analog here is Kateřina Šedá’s project «For Every Dog a Differ-ent Master»8 ).Then, instructions for planting the seeds would be sent.Later, college students studying land-scape design could be asked to choose one of the district’s courts and to sug-gest a draft plan for landscaping with lilac bushes (as part of their course work). The resulting landscaping plan with a recognizable view could

be compiled into a small album that could be sent to the residents of the yard - to paint a picture with recogniz-able view that shows potential and is attractive. It is also possible to post the pictures an open area for participants to make proposals.

Communication: during the final stage, close to the time of planting, participants will receive a game plan/instructions. All necessary elements are distributed to the participants (instruments are held by one, fertilizer by another, a detailed plan for planting - by the third and so on). Thus, partici-pants will need to collect all the neces-sary components: making exchanges, going to each other’s homes or making preliminary arrangements. In this way, we obtain an excellent opportunity for communication. For a proper fit in the end, college students, gardeners and scholars will also be involved.Motivation: At the conclusion of the project, a small yard festival with mov-

ies about the lilacs could be staged, workshops (various lilac products could be prepared, such as jam, liqueurs and perfume), food kiosks, photo exhibitions and stories about Kolesnikov.

These are options in the case of suc-cess and residents’ responsiveness. Moreover, there is a reward: resolu-tion of one of the existing problems in the yard.In condominiums (“cooperativny dom”), it is possible to organize gar-dens on rooftops. Alternatively, in the same way we can green balconies.

Instead of mailing materials to partici-pants, it is maybe worthwhile to use a website as a communication platform. After registration, the visitor becomes a participant and receives all the nec-essary information and materials. The advantage gained from this approach is the ability to download various formats of content.

1. To start with the roots! (ease of imple-mentation, topic of interest)

«Unified action to care for and recover urban public spaces, such as subbot-niki, involve the participation of a large number of people. Subbotniki started as an act of voluntary non-binding work but quickly became compulsory in the USSR. But in recent years, people have begun to organize in large num-bers in volun¬tarily efforts to clean up public city spaces.»7

In April 2012, 2,2 million Moscow residents participated in subbotniki, or roughly 18% of the entire city popula-tion. In comparison, around 100,000 people participated in opposition ral-lies, 15,000 people attend lectures per year and 5,000 Muscovites run mara-thons in May). Recently, volunteer or-ganizations for territory improvement have appeared in parks for example.

2. “Place”To increase the degree of responsibil-ity for common, shared space, it is necessary to start with the area that is adjacent to private living space: the yard. Currently, the yard territory has an uncertain status. It seems to be common, but at the same time it belongs to no one. Based on results of the FOM study, a majority of respond-ents are satisfied with their yard con-ditions, 61% once a year participate in its improvement and repair. An over-whelming majority, 77%, are ready to participate in subbotniki and actions directed at improving the surrounding areas if they were organized.

3. The topic, historically and cultur-ally connected to the place, highlight-ing and formulating its identity

Thus, the topic of breeding and gardening here is rather pronounced on different historical levels. For this reason, it seems suitable for uniting residents around it and for identifica-tion with participants

Correspondence to criteria The Izmailovo lilac

Izmailovo case

49

1312

Peter the Great’s botik + ponds system + boating (little paper ships) + legend of Bauman bridge

The story of Young Peter the Great, who invented the botik, or small boat, and is also known as the grandfather of the Russian fleet, is related to Izmailovo. According to blogs, boating with children is one of locals’ favorite activities. The festival of water lanterns is a good example of how a family-ac-tivity oriented event could be created (including family team competition in ship modeling and restoration and redesign of old boats). There is also a legend for lovers connected to the Bau-man Bridge (an echo under the bridge predicts the lovers’ future together). Living this legend on a self-made boat could become a beautiful tradition as part of the festival.

Izmailovo Park + first big dip-per in Russia + second stage of bulldozer exhibition of avant-garde artists in the 60’s + Mime and Gesture Theater + Out-siders’ Museum + local band “Natoptishi”

The area could gain the status of a free art territory, following from the story of the bulldozer exhibition in 1974. Actors from the Theater of Mime and Gesture could be engaged, and artwork from the Autsiders’ Museum could be exhibited on trees (like artists did in 1974). The story of first big dipper could also become the subject for artwork, or part of them, or even a site for an exhibition.

Wild beast shew in imperial past on the territory of Izmailo-vo Park + many dovecotes + first in Russia experimental apiary + otters that have been living there at one time + the biggest Zoo in the country planned in Soviet times but never built

Other potential combinations for social branding projects (according to the scheme)

Following the scheme of the identity formulation and social engagement, we arrive at a social place brand. Organized condi-tions allow people to build the premises for forming a brand and highlighting a place identity themselves, thereby improving the environment through concrete steps and actions that they take together. With the help of this approach, it is possible to kill two birds with one stone. First, this approach leads people to take more responsibility for something shared by taking care of it together, thereby improving quality of life and becoming a bit more independent from top-down decisions. Second, this ap-proach creates an honest brand, representing the unique identity of a place. Eventually, locals will become a source of information provision, preserving and adapting the brand.

Conclusion

1. Robert Govers & Frank Go, Place Branding. London: CPI Antony Rowe, Chip-penham and Eastbourne, 2009. P. 17.

2. Cultuur in de Citymarketing by Noordman, T.B.J., (2004), Den Haag: Else-vier/ Reed Business Publications, P. 50.

3. Гудков Л.Д., Дубин Б.В., Зоркая Н.А. Постсоветский человек и гражданское общество. — М.: Московская школа политических исследований. 2008, c. 6.

4. S.B. Young, J. Lindstrom, Social Capital Achievement: 2009 Country Rankings (http://www.cauxroundtable.org/index.cfm?&menuid=126&parentid=52)

5. RIA “Novosti”. “Seeking for kindness in the atmosphere of total mistrust” (http://www.levada.ru/17-02-2012/poiski-dobroty-v-atmosfere-totalnogo-nedoveriya)

6. Anna Butenko, Public Space, Research Report, 2010-2011 educational pro-gram, M., P.48

7. Anna Butenko, Public Space, Research Report, 2010-2011 educational pro-gram, M., P.46

8. Katerina Seda, Jana Klusakova. Katerina Seda: For Every Dog a Different Master, JRP|Ringier, 2008

9. Simon Anholt, Competitive Identity. London: CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne, 2007.

10. Ares Kalandides, City marketing for Bogota´: a case study in integrated place branding. Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 4 No. 3, 2011, pp. 282-291

11. Sebastian Zenker, How to catch a city? The concept and measurement of place brands. Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 4 No. 1, 2011, pp. 40-52

12. Prices and Earnings, A global purchasing power comparison, August 2011 update

13. Cities of Opportunity, Partnership for New York City. Annual report 201114. Perception survey on quality of life in European cities, Analytical report

2009 Conducted by The Gallup Organisation, Hungary upon the request of Directorate General for Regional Policy

Bibliography

50

1312

Peter the Great’s botik + ponds system + boating (little paper ships) + legend of Bauman bridge

The story of Young Peter the Great, who invented the botik, or small boat, and is also known as the grandfather of the Russian fleet, is related to Izmailovo. According to blogs, boating with children is one of locals’ favorite activities. The festival of water lanterns is a good example of how a family-ac-tivity oriented event could be created (including family team competition in ship modeling and restoration and redesign of old boats). There is also a legend for lovers connected to the Bau-man Bridge (an echo under the bridge predicts the lovers’ future together). Living this legend on a self-made boat could become a beautiful tradition as part of the festival.

Izmailovo Park + first big dip-per in Russia + second stage of bulldozer exhibition of avant-garde artists in the 60’s + Mime and Gesture Theater + Out-siders’ Museum + local band “Natoptishi”

The area could gain the status of a free art territory, following from the story of the bulldozer exhibition in 1974. Actors from the Theater of Mime and Gesture could be engaged, and artwork from the Autsiders’ Museum could be exhibited on trees (like artists did in 1974). The story of first big dipper could also become the subject for artwork, or part of them, or even a site for an exhibition.

Wild beast shew in imperial past on the territory of Izmailo-vo Park + many dovecotes + first in Russia experimental apiary + otters that have been living there at one time + the biggest Zoo in the country planned in Soviet times but never built

Other potential combinations for social branding projects (according to the scheme)

Following the scheme of the identity formulation and social engagement, we arrive at a social place brand. Organized condi-tions allow people to build the premises for forming a brand and highlighting a place identity themselves, thereby improving the environment through concrete steps and actions that they take together. With the help of this approach, it is possible to kill two birds with one stone. First, this approach leads people to take more responsibility for something shared by taking care of it together, thereby improving quality of life and becoming a bit more independent from top-down decisions. Second, this ap-proach creates an honest brand, representing the unique identity of a place. Eventually, locals will become a source of information provision, preserving and adapting the brand.

Conclusion

1. Robert Govers & Frank Go, Place Branding. London: CPI Antony Rowe, Chip-penham and Eastbourne, 2009. P. 17.

2. Cultuur in de Citymarketing by Noordman, T.B.J., (2004), Den Haag: Else-vier/ Reed Business Publications, P. 50.

3. Гудков Л.Д., Дубин Б.В., Зоркая Н.А. Постсоветский человек и гражданское общество. — М.: Московская школа политических исследований. 2008, c. 6.

4. S.B. Young, J. Lindstrom, Social Capital Achievement: 2009 Country Rankings (http://www.cauxroundtable.org/index.cfm?&menuid=126&parentid=52)

5. RIA “Novosti”. “Seeking for kindness in the atmosphere of total mistrust” (http://www.levada.ru/17-02-2012/poiski-dobroty-v-atmosfere-totalnogo-nedoveriya)

6. Anna Butenko, Public Space, Research Report, 2010-2011 educational pro-gram, M., P.48

7. Anna Butenko, Public Space, Research Report, 2010-2011 educational pro-gram, M., P.46

8. Katerina Seda, Jana Klusakova. Katerina Seda: For Every Dog a Different Master, JRP|Ringier, 2008

9. Simon Anholt, Competitive Identity. London: CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne, 2007.

10. Ares Kalandides, City marketing for Bogota´: a case study in integrated place branding. Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 4 No. 3, 2011, pp. 282-291

11. Sebastian Zenker, How to catch a city? The concept and measurement of place brands. Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 4 No. 1, 2011, pp. 40-52

12. Prices and Earnings, A global purchasing power comparison, August 2011 update

13. Cities of Opportunity, Partnership for New York City. Annual report 201114. Perception survey on quality of life in European cities, Analytical report

2009 Conducted by The Gallup Organisation, Hungary upon the request of Directorate General for Regional Policy

Bibliography

13

1. Robert Govers & Frank Go, Place Branding. London: CPI Antony Rowe, Chip-penham and Eastbourne, 2009, 17.

2. Noordman, Cultuur in de Citymarketing, T.B.J., Den Haag: Elsevier/ Reed Business Publications, 2004, 50.

3. Гудков Л.Д., Дубин Б.В., Зоркая Н.А. Постсоветский человек и гражданское общество. Москва: Московская школа политических исследований, 2008, 6.

4. S.B. Young, J. Lindstrom, Social Capital Achievement: 2009 Country Rankings (http://www.cauxroundtable.org/index.cfm?&menuid=126&parentid=52)

5. RIA “Novosti”. “Seeking for kindness in the atmosphere of total mistrust” (http://www.levada.ru/17-02-2012/poiski-dobroty-v-atmosfere-totalnogo-nedoveriya).

6. Anna Butenko, Public Space, Research Report. Moscow, 2010-2011 educa-tional program, 48.

7. Anna Butenko, Public Space, Research Report. Moscow, 2010-2011 educa-tional program, 46.

8. Katerina Seda, Jana Klusakova. Katerina Seda: For Every Dog a Different Master, JRP|Ringier, 2008.

9. Simon Anholt, Competitive Identity. London: CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne, 2007.

10. Ares Kalandides, “City marketing for Bogota: a case study in integrated place branding,” in journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 4 No. 3, 2011, 282-291.

11. Sebastian Zenker, “How to catch a city? The concept and measurement of place brands”, in journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 4 No. 1, 2011, 40-52.

12. Prices and Earnings, A global purchasing power comparison, August 2011 update.

13. Cities of Opportunity, Partnership for New York City. Annual report 201114. Perception survey on quality of life in European cities, Analytical report

2009 Conducted by The Gallup Organisation, Hungary upon the request of Directorate General for Regional Policy.

Bibliography

51

Cultural clusters as a social magnet Tatyana Polyakova

HypothesisThe transformation of unused historical sites into socio-cul-tural clusters gives the city a chance to create a catalyst for area development, drawing on the energy of society. This repurposing also serves as a tool to improve social engage-ment between different types of people. Finding an appropri-ate function to maintain and reuse buildings facilitates the preservation of heritage and the integration of these build-ings into contemporary urban life.

AbstractLocated in the center of Moscow, the White and Red Cham-bers is a historical architectural complex, rich with cultural life that was built in the seventeenth century. These build-ings are excluded from contemporary urban culture because society lacks knowledge of their real value. They are among the few buildings remaining from that time in Moscow. Two of the three buildings from this era were preserved and used later for different functions. There is an issue of reusing the Chambers and creating an appropriate model of organizing cluster for this historic site. All art clusters have a headline idea around which all other functions are attached. In the case of the Chambers, the main anchor for the concept is architectural heritage. The main issues for the concept are: 1) creation of a place for communication and the exchange ideas about architecture and heritage; 2) restoration for this historical site to the sta-tus of a public space and implementation in a level of contem-porary urban culture; 3) identification of content for engage-ment of citizens; 4) creation of a sustainable economic model, where business will support social initiatives. One of the key parameters for finding a new function for this unused space is to focus on an analysis of the area and on the lack of certain functions. The aim of this research is to rethink the structure of art clusters in Moscow and to formulate it as a social mag-net for the engagement of people.

There may be several ways to repurpose post-industrial or recently abandoned sites after the loss of their original func-tion. Creation of an art or post-industrial cluster is one of them. The main audience for clusters in Moscow is the profes-sional public. Compared with Berlin's experience with cluster organization, there is a lack of social initiatives in the Mos-cow model. Adding other functions will create an alternative, open and lively model, which will attract more types of people and help to create social engagement. The meaning of profit is changing with time from a purely financial sphere to social capital value. To achieve the aim of formulating a conceptual proposal for the historic dwellings, the Red and White Cham-bers were analyzed and compared with other structures in Moscow and with Berlin art clusters. Appropriate functions for the neighborhood and types of visitors were identified.

Vinzavod, Moscow Flacon, Moscow Arma, Moscow

Artplay, MoscowRed October, Moscow Proekt Fabrika, Moscow

BenchmarksTo understand the transformation process for local and for-eign post-industrial sites, examples from Moscow and Berlin of reused heritage are considered in this paper. The com-parison with Berlin is interesting because in Germany the emergence of clusters as a structure for business began in the 1980s, when the country initiated reunification. In Germany, the economy was built on the idea of clusters while in Russia cluster formation does not take place out of necessity. In this way, Russia's cluster formation appears to be a self-upgrade trendy art places, using the Western model as an example. The creation of art clusters in Russia appears to reflect a desire to implement change.

Evaluating the formats of the six existing art clusters in Moscow, it was found that most activities are focused on the professional public and only approximately 2% aim for social engagement. By contrast, in the Berlin art cluster social engagement accounts for one-third of the total formats. The main difference between Moscow’s clusters and international clusters is their mission. In Moscow, often the aim is to create a new fancy place for artists and the professional community. These are the headline ideas for Moscow's art clusters:

• Vinzavod,contemporaryart,12galleries• Flacon,fashion,26shopsandshowrooms• Arma is positioning itself to be a creative district,with a concentration in media and fashion to the tune of seven offices for each category• Artplay,mainfocusison72shopsfordesignmateri-als, but there are also 45 design and architecture studios• RedOctober,barsandclubs,15establishments• Proekt Fabrika, the name lends itself to being con-sidered an industrial center, media companies (8) occupy the largest number of offices

Overall, these art clusters lack a real connection with the neighborhood and locals. These culture spots operate on a city-wide level.

ClusterThe general system of the cluster is being considered in order to understand the structure of this particular case, which con-cerns the formation of an art cluster. In the most basic sense, the cluster is defined as a union of similar business activi-ties targeted at an imaginable client. Many relative functions create more value together because they work together and create some product of collaboration. Rental prices for ten-ants are calculated differently in order to offer lower rent to anchor tenants who draw customers to the cluster. The suc-cess of the cluster depends on the synergy between tenants. This effect could be achieved when the administration makes the right choice of tenants, using deep and non-random logic. Moreover, the driving force of the cluster is management that is really passionate about their work. The vision of the cluster should be easy to remember, contain a challenge and be an attraction for visitors.

Art clusters all over the world are characterized by being formed in historical buildings due to the aura of history that highlights artwork. There are a few types of art clusters: an artificially formed object, like a district, and a naturally formed district. An example of a natural formulation is the Chelsea district in New York, where empty spaces were rented by art galleries, leading to the gentrification of the area. This type has a certain set of features: inexpensive abandoned build-ings, overgrown infrastructure, free borders or the ability to grow and power of private tenant branding. An example of artificial formulation is Vinzavod in Moscow, where the own-ers deliberately imitated an art district. This type of cluster has the following advantages: one owner or a long-term lessee, unified policy for rent and information, unified branding and a clear management system. Also, inner systems of the cluster can differentiate according to these parameters: independent businesses or an imitation of independent business according to the ownership of the business and the cluster.

Phot

o by

Eri

c Va

leev

http

://w

ww

.pan

oram

io.c

om/

http

://r-

p-g.

livej

ourn

al.c

om/

http

://w

ww

.win

zavo

d.ru

/

http

://fla

con.

ru/

http

://m

osco

wda

ilysh

ot.b

logs

pot.c

om/

http

://w

e-ar

t.ru/

proe

ctfa

brik

a/

52

Cultural clusters as a social magnet Tatyana Polyakova

HypothesisThe transformation of unused historical sites into socio-cul-tural clusters gives the city a chance to create a catalyst for area development, drawing on the energy of society. This repurposing also serves as a tool to improve social engage-ment between different types of people. Finding an appropri-ate function to maintain and reuse buildings facilitates the preservation of heritage and the integration of these build-ings into contemporary urban life.

AbstractLocated in the center of Moscow, the White and Red Cham-bers is a historical architectural complex, rich with cultural life that was built in the seventeenth century. These build-ings are excluded from contemporary urban culture because society lacks knowledge of their real value. They are among the few buildings remaining from that time in Moscow. Two of the three buildings from this era were preserved and used later for different functions. There is an issue of reusing the Chambers and creating an appropriate model of organizing cluster for this historic site. All art clusters have a headline idea around which all other functions are attached. In the case of the Chambers, the main anchor for the concept is architectural heritage. The main issues for the concept are: 1) creation of a place for communication and the exchange ideas about architecture and heritage; 2) restoration for this historical site to the sta-tus of a public space and implementation in a level of contem-porary urban culture; 3) identification of content for engage-ment of citizens; 4) creation of a sustainable economic model, where business will support social initiatives. One of the key parameters for finding a new function for this unused space is to focus on an analysis of the area and on the lack of certain functions. The aim of this research is to rethink the structure of art clusters in Moscow and to formulate it as a social mag-net for the engagement of people.

There may be several ways to repurpose post-industrial or recently abandoned sites after the loss of their original func-tion. Creation of an art or post-industrial cluster is one of them. The main audience for clusters in Moscow is the profes-sional public. Compared with Berlin's experience with cluster organization, there is a lack of social initiatives in the Mos-cow model. Adding other functions will create an alternative, open and lively model, which will attract more types of people and help to create social engagement. The meaning of profit is changing with time from a purely financial sphere to social capital value. To achieve the aim of formulating a conceptual proposal for the historic dwellings, the Red and White Cham-bers were analyzed and compared with other structures in Moscow and with Berlin art clusters. Appropriate functions for the neighborhood and types of visitors were identified.

Vinzavod, Moscow Flacon, Moscow Arma, Moscow

Artplay, MoscowRed October, Moscow Proekt Fabrika, Moscow

BenchmarksTo understand the transformation process for local and for-eign post-industrial sites, examples from Moscow and Berlin of reused heritage are considered in this paper. The com-parison with Berlin is interesting because in Germany the emergence of clusters as a structure for business began in the 1980s, when the country initiated reunification. In Germany, the economy was built on the idea of clusters while in Russia cluster formation does not take place out of necessity. In this way, Russia's cluster formation appears to be a self-upgrade trendy art places, using the Western model as an example. The creation of art clusters in Russia appears to reflect a desire to implement change.

Evaluating the formats of the six existing art clusters in Moscow, it was found that most activities are focused on the professional public and only approximately 2% aim for social engagement. By contrast, in the Berlin art cluster social engagement accounts for one-third of the total formats. The main difference between Moscow’s clusters and international clusters is their mission. In Moscow, often the aim is to create a new fancy place for artists and the professional community. These are the headline ideas for Moscow's art clusters:

• Vinzavod,contemporaryart,12galleries• Flacon,fashion,26shopsandshowrooms• Arma is positioning itself to be a creative district,with a concentration in media and fashion to the tune of seven offices for each category• Artplay,mainfocusison72shopsfordesignmateri-als, but there are also 45 design and architecture studios• RedOctober,barsandclubs,15establishments• Proekt Fabrika, the name lends itself to being con-sidered an industrial center, media companies (8) occupy the largest number of offices

Overall, these art clusters lack a real connection with the neighborhood and locals. These culture spots operate on a city-wide level.

ClusterThe general system of the cluster is being considered in order to understand the structure of this particular case, which con-cerns the formation of an art cluster. In the most basic sense, the cluster is defined as a union of similar business activi-ties targeted at an imaginable client. Many relative functions create more value together because they work together and create some product of collaboration. Rental prices for ten-ants are calculated differently in order to offer lower rent to anchor tenants who draw customers to the cluster. The suc-cess of the cluster depends on the synergy between tenants. This effect could be achieved when the administration makes the right choice of tenants, using deep and non-random logic. Moreover, the driving force of the cluster is management that is really passionate about their work. The vision of the cluster should be easy to remember, contain a challenge and be an attraction for visitors.

Art clusters all over the world are characterized by being formed in historical buildings due to the aura of history that highlights artwork. There are a few types of art clusters: an artificially formed object, like a district, and a naturally formed district. An example of a natural formulation is the Chelsea district in New York, where empty spaces were rented by art galleries, leading to the gentrification of the area. This type has a certain set of features: inexpensive abandoned build-ings, overgrown infrastructure, free borders or the ability to grow and power of private tenant branding. An example of artificial formulation is Vinzavod in Moscow, where the own-ers deliberately imitated an art district. This type of cluster has the following advantages: one owner or a long-term lessee, unified policy for rent and information, unified branding and a clear management system. Also, inner systems of the cluster can differentiate according to these parameters: independent businesses or an imitation of independent business according to the ownership of the business and the cluster.

Phot

o by

Eri

c Va

leev

http

://w

ww

.pan

oram

io.c

om/

http

://r-

p-g.

livej

ourn

al.c

om/

http

://w

ww

.win

zavo

d.ru

/

http

://fla

con.

ru/

http

://m

osco

wda

ilysh

ot.b

logs

pot.c

om/

http

://w

e-ar

t.ru/

proe

ctfa

brik

a/

53

ExRotaprint, Berlin

Another category of clusters focuses on the collaboration between professionals and the neighborhood and community to improve the social atmosphere without raising prices. This goal can be achieved using different methods; it is considered in the following two examples from Berlin.

The first example is Aufbau Haus, a successful post-industrial space that was transformed into a socio-cultural space. It was reconstructed, and a new exterior wing was built, adding light and space for new offices. The structure of the complex is very unusual because it was formed around a shop for art supplies. Other functions are attached to the shop, which is located in the center of the building on a few floors, includ-ing numerous art workshops and designers' offices, which are potential buyers for the materials. There are many other establishments inside the complex: a theater, cafes, a kinder-garten, workshops for wood crafts, a tailor, creative industry offices, a club, and art shops. A smart tenants’ organization allows for the formation of a structure where the companies can cooperate and feed each other. In addition to a success-ful business side, the complex also hosts a social support pro-gram for emigrants. In general, the neighborhood that the complex is located in is mostly characterized by its emigrant population, and not a wealthy public. People in this area have the opportunity to find a job in Modulor. Moreover, the com-plex allows employees to work in different positions in the complex without fear of being fired, so that they can find a place where they are comfortable with the work. Likewise, the kindergarten is open to all residents, including emigrants. Investors provided social support for the kindergarten when they designed the project. In short, these social supports help to avoid a gentrification process in the neighborhood and improve the life of the community.

The ExRotaprint project, a benchmark for post-industrial use, is the second example under consideration. Located in the building of a printing press, ExRotaprint still houses part of a working printing press. Transformation of this building was organized by artists and architects who had been renting stu-dios there before. When the government decided to sell the factory, renters joined together and found financial support from a foundation. They bought this factory and created a unique structure in this historical site. The structure consists of three parts: work, art and community. Moreover, ExRo-taprint has a system of non-profit enterprise. Social entre-

preneurship is the fundamental base of the cluster. All money received in the form of rent is directed to reconstruction of the building and support for the arts. The work element com-prises businesses, which provide the main profit from rentals, while the art component includes artist workshops, which pay less in rent. The community element comprises social projects like a German-language school for emigrants and a school for teenage dropouts who have difficulties with law. In the latter school, the students can find their own professional way and give up crime. ExRotaprint's neighborhood is not wealthy and is mainly composed of emigrants. Involving citizens in the ExRotaprint project helps to improve the area. The process of gentrification is illustrated by an increase of real estate val-uesinthearea.In2007,realestatepurchasepricesforapart-ments in the area were about 800 to 1,100 euro per sq. m., but by 2012 apartment purchase prices in the area had increased to about 1200 to 1800 euro per sq. m. Even as rental prices in the neighborhood increased, there have been no increases to rents at ExRotaprint, where rents are 3.5 to 4.5 euro per sq. m per month (ancillary costs and tax not included). However, in theneighborhoodrentsroseto6europersq.m.permonth(ancillary costs and tax not included). During an interview with ExRotaprint Founder Daniela Brahm on May 10, 2012, she told me the following: “ExRotaprint doesn´t want to be the initiator of gentrification in this district. We won´t be proud of having increased real estate prices or turnovers. What we want is to help precarious businesses, to help start-ups, people with good ideas, to enable jobless people to return to jobs, to get people off the street, to promote education, to encourage businesses to employ people, to collaborate, to dis-cover new potentials. Nevertheless, with ExRotaprint now being fully rented out there are about 200 permanent jobs on the compound, adding 200 clients daily to it; it has a positive effect on tax income for the city.”

Summarizing the main structural points of the examples in Berlin, it is important to note that they have a very strong social aspect. When the developers were thinking about financial profit for these new enterprises, they also did not neglect to create social value for society and did not close their eyes to social problems and the plight of emigrants. Moreo-ver, developers helped to integrate these elements into the society. Social support depends on private initiatives.

http

://w

ww

.bet

on-c

ampu

s.de

/

Aufbau Haus, Berlin

professionals NGO members Active citizensof working age

tourists children students retired migrants

Target audiencies

soci

al p

roje

cts

15 10 8 6399

inte

rior d

esig

n st

ores

92

desi

gn &

arc

hite

ctur

e st

udio

s

9

book

& a

rt s

hops

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

fash

ion

shop

s

spor

t act

iviti

es

31

galle

ries

31

galle

ries

31

galle

ries

art w

orks

hops

3356

fash

ion

shop

s

56 33

med

ia

thea

tre

59

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

33

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

31

galle

ries

soci

al p

roje

cts

1015

art w

orks

hops

16

club

s

rese

arch

inst

itute

16

club

s

15

educ

atio

n

4 4

hote

l & h

oste

ls

3

cine

ma

4

spac

es fo

r eve

nts

9

book

& a

rt s

hops

33

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

31

galle

ries

10

soci

al p

roje

cts

4

cine

ma

4

thea

tre

spor

t act

iviti

es

31

galle

ries

33

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

15 8

soci

al p

roje

cts

10

art w

orks

hops

fash

ion

shop

s

56 4

cine

ma

4

thea

tre

4

beau

ty in

dust

ry

3

trip

age

ncy

Summary analyzes of Moscow cultural clusters

art w

orks

hops

4

art w

orks

hops

4

art w

orks

hops

4

beau

ty in

dust

ry

1

educ

atio

n

4

book

& a

rt s

hops

8

book

& a

rt s

hops

8

cine

ma

2

cine

ma

2

cine

ma

2

desi

gn &

arc

hite

ctur

e st

udio

s

12

med

ia

18

galle

ries

4

galle

ries

4

galle

ries

4

galle

ries

4

galle

ries

4

galle

ries

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

soci

al p

roje

cts

5

soci

al p

roje

cts

5

soci

al p

roje

cts

5

soci

al p

roje

cts

5

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

spor

t act

iviti

es

spor

t act

iviti

es

2 2

thea

tre

1

thea

tre

1

trip

age

ncie

s

1

fash

ion

shop

s

26

fash

ion

shop

s

26

fash

ion

shop

s

26

1

art w

orks

hops

2

art w

orks

hops

2

art w

orks

hops

2

beau

ty in

dust

ry

1

educ

atio

n

5

book

& a

rt s

hops

3

book

& a

rt s

hops

3

cine

ma

1

cine

ma

1

cine

ma

2

desi

gn &

arc

hite

ctur

e st

udio

s

2

inte

rior d

esig

n st

ores

2 1

med

iare

sear

ch in

stitu

te

galle

ries

12

galle

ries

12

galle

ries

12

galle

ries

12

galle

ries

12

galle

ries

12

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

soci

al p

roje

cts

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

1

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

spor

t act

iviti

es

spor

t act

iviti

es

1 2

fash

ion

shop

s

6

fash

ion

shop

s

6

fash

ion

shop

s

6

club

2

club

2

med

ia

7

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

inte

rior d

esig

n st

ores

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

1

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

1

spor

t act

iviti

es

2

spor

t act

iviti

es

2

fash

ion

shop

s

7

fash

ion

shop

s

7

fash

ion

shop

s

7

art w

orks

hops

3

art w

orks

hops

3

art w

orks

hops

3

educ

atio

n

3

book

& a

rt s

hops

2

book

& a

rt s

hops

2

cine

ma

1

cine

ma

1

cine

ma

1

desi

gn &

arc

hite

ctur

e st

udio

s

45

med

ia

12

inte

rior d

esig

n sh

ops

75

galle

ries

6

galle

ries

6

galle

ries

6

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

rese

arch

inst

itute

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

1

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

trip

age

ncie

s

1

fash

ion

shop

s

2

galle

ries

6

galle

ries

6

galle

ries

6

fash

ion

shop

s

2

fash

ion

shop

s

2

beau

ty in

dust

ry

1 1

educ

atio

n

3

hote

l & h

oste

l

3

book

& a

rt s

hops

2

book

& a

rt s

hops

2

cine

ma

1

cine

ma

1

inte

rior d

esig

n sh

ops

1

club

s

5

cine

ma

1

trip

age

ncy

club

s

5

club

s

5

desi

gn &

arc

hite

ctur

e st

udio

s

21

med

ia

13

galle

ries

7

galle

ries

7

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

15

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

15

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

15

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

15

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

15

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

spor

t act

iviti

es

4

spor

t act

iviti

es

4

fash

ion

shop

s

18

galle

ries

7

fash

ion

shop

s

18

galle

ries

7

galle

ries

7

galle

ries

7

fash

ion

shop

s

18

cine

ma

1

med

ia

8

galle

ries

3

cine

ma

1

galle

ries

3

cine

ma

1

galle

ries

3

galle

ries

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

galle

ries

3

galle

ries

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

1

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

1

spor

t act

iviti

es

1

spor

t act

iviti

es

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

2

soci

al p

roje

cts

2

soci

al p

roje

cts

2

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

2

soci

al p

roje

cts

2

thea

tre

2

thea

tre

2

thea

tre

2

core industry: design

core industry: fashion core industry: contemporary art core industry: art andand community

core industry: design & architecture

ArtplayMoscow

Flacon Moscow

VinzavodMoscow

core industry: media, design & architecture

Red OctoberMoscow

core industry: media

Analyzes of cultural clusters

Proekt Fabrika Moscow

Arma Moscow

ExRotaprintBerlin

independent businesses imitation of independent businesses

Structures of clusters

naturally formed district object formed as a district

med

ia

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

soci

al p

roje

cts

desi

gn &

arc

hite

ctur

e st

udio

inte

rior d

esig

n st

ores

11 1 847

book

& a

rt s

hops

1

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

book

& a

rt s

hops

1

art w

orks

hops

1

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

art w

orks

hops

1

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

art w

orks

hops

1

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

8

soci

al p

roje

cts

8

soci

al p

roje

cts

8

54

ExRotaprint, Berlin

Another category of clusters focuses on the collaboration between professionals and the neighborhood and community to improve the social atmosphere without raising prices. This goal can be achieved using different methods; it is considered in the following two examples from Berlin.

The first example is Aufbau Haus, a successful post-industrial space that was transformed into a socio-cultural space. It was reconstructed, and a new exterior wing was built, adding light and space for new offices. The structure of the complex is very unusual because it was formed around a shop for art supplies. Other functions are attached to the shop, which is located in the center of the building on a few floors, includ-ing numerous art workshops and designers' offices, which are potential buyers for the materials. There are many other establishments inside the complex: a theater, cafes, a kinder-garten, workshops for wood crafts, a tailor, creative industry offices, a club, and art shops. A smart tenants’ organization allows for the formation of a structure where the companies can cooperate and feed each other. In addition to a success-ful business side, the complex also hosts a social support pro-gram for emigrants. In general, the neighborhood that the complex is located in is mostly characterized by its emigrant population, and not a wealthy public. People in this area have the opportunity to find a job in Modulor. Moreover, the com-plex allows employees to work in different positions in the complex without fear of being fired, so that they can find a place where they are comfortable with the work. Likewise, the kindergarten is open to all residents, including emigrants. Investors provided social support for the kindergarten when they designed the project. In short, these social supports help to avoid a gentrification process in the neighborhood and improve the life of the community.

The ExRotaprint project, a benchmark for post-industrial use, is the second example under consideration. Located in the building of a printing press, ExRotaprint still houses part of a working printing press. Transformation of this building was organized by artists and architects who had been renting stu-dios there before. When the government decided to sell the factory, renters joined together and found financial support from a foundation. They bought this factory and created a unique structure in this historical site. The structure consists of three parts: work, art and community. Moreover, ExRo-taprint has a system of non-profit enterprise. Social entre-

preneurship is the fundamental base of the cluster. All money received in the form of rent is directed to reconstruction of the building and support for the arts. The work element com-prises businesses, which provide the main profit from rentals, while the art component includes artist workshops, which pay less in rent. The community element comprises social projects like a German-language school for emigrants and a school for teenage dropouts who have difficulties with law. In the latter school, the students can find their own professional way and give up crime. ExRotaprint's neighborhood is not wealthy and is mainly composed of emigrants. Involving citizens in the ExRotaprint project helps to improve the area. The process of gentrification is illustrated by an increase of real estate val-uesinthearea.In2007,realestatepurchasepricesforapart-ments in the area were about 800 to 1,100 euro per sq. m., but by 2012 apartment purchase prices in the area had increased to about 1200 to 1800 euro per sq. m. Even as rental prices in the neighborhood increased, there have been no increases to rents at ExRotaprint, where rents are 3.5 to 4.5 euro per sq. m per month (ancillary costs and tax not included). However, in theneighborhoodrentsroseto6europersq.m.permonth(ancillary costs and tax not included). During an interview with ExRotaprint Founder Daniela Brahm on May 10, 2012, she told me the following: “ExRotaprint doesn´t want to be the initiator of gentrification in this district. We won´t be proud of having increased real estate prices or turnovers. What we want is to help precarious businesses, to help start-ups, people with good ideas, to enable jobless people to return to jobs, to get people off the street, to promote education, to encourage businesses to employ people, to collaborate, to dis-cover new potentials. Nevertheless, with ExRotaprint now being fully rented out there are about 200 permanent jobs on the compound, adding 200 clients daily to it; it has a positive effect on tax income for the city.”

Summarizing the main structural points of the examples in Berlin, it is important to note that they have a very strong social aspect. When the developers were thinking about financial profit for these new enterprises, they also did not neglect to create social value for society and did not close their eyes to social problems and the plight of emigrants. Moreo-ver, developers helped to integrate these elements into the society. Social support depends on private initiatives.

http

://w

ww

.bet

on-c

ampu

s.de

/

Aufbau Haus, Berlin

professionals NGO members Active citizensof working age

tourists children students retired migrants

Target audiencies

soci

al p

roje

cts

15 10 8 6399

inte

rior d

esig

n st

ores

92

desi

gn &

arc

hite

ctur

e st

udio

s

9

book

& a

rt s

hops

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

fash

ion

shop

s

spor

t act

iviti

es

31

galle

ries

31

galle

ries

31

galle

ries

art w

orks

hops

3356

fash

ion

shop

s

56 33

med

ia

thea

tre

59

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

33

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

31

galle

ries

soci

al p

roje

cts

1015

art w

orks

hops

16

club

s

rese

arch

inst

itute

16

club

s

15

educ

atio

n

4 4

hote

l & h

oste

ls

3

cine

ma

4

spac

es fo

r eve

nts

9

book

& a

rt s

hops

33

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

31

galle

ries

10

soci

al p

roje

cts

4

cine

ma

4

thea

tre

spor

t act

iviti

es

31

galle

ries

33

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

15 8

soci

al p

roje

cts

10

art w

orks

hops

fash

ion

shop

s

56 4

cine

ma

4

thea

tre

4

beau

ty in

dust

ry

3

trip

age

ncy

Summary analyzes of Moscow cultural clusters

art w

orks

hops

4

art w

orks

hops

4

art w

orks

hops

4

beau

ty in

dust

ry

1

educ

atio

n

4

book

& a

rt s

hops

8

book

& a

rt s

hops

8

cine

ma

2

cine

ma

2

cine

ma

2

desi

gn &

arc

hite

ctur

e st

udio

s

12

med

ia

18

galle

ries

4

galle

ries

4

galle

ries

4

galle

ries

4

galle

ries

4

galle

ries

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

soci

al p

roje

cts

5

soci

al p

roje

cts

5

soci

al p

roje

cts

5

soci

al p

roje

cts

5

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

spor

t act

iviti

es

spor

t act

iviti

es

2 2

thea

tre

1

thea

tre

1

trip

age

ncie

s

1

fash

ion

shop

s

26

fash

ion

shop

s

26

fash

ion

shop

s

26

1

art w

orks

hops

2

art w

orks

hops

2

art w

orks

hops

2

beau

ty in

dust

ry

1

educ

atio

n

5

book

& a

rt s

hops

3

book

& a

rt s

hops

3

cine

ma

1

cine

ma

1

cine

ma

2

desi

gn &

arc

hite

ctur

e st

udio

s

2

inte

rior d

esig

n st

ores

2 1

med

iare

sear

ch in

stitu

te

galle

ries

12

galle

ries

12

galle

ries

12

galle

ries

12

galle

ries

12

galle

ries

12

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

soci

al p

roje

cts

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

1

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

3

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

spor

t act

iviti

es

spor

t act

iviti

es

1 2

fash

ion

shop

s

6

fash

ion

shop

s

6

fash

ion

shop

s

6

club

2

club

2

med

ia

7

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

inte

rior d

esig

n st

ores

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

1

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

1

spor

t act

iviti

es

2

spor

t act

iviti

es

2

fash

ion

shop

s

7

fash

ion

shop

s

7

fash

ion

shop

s

7

art w

orks

hops

3

art w

orks

hops

3

art w

orks

hops

3

educ

atio

n

3

book

& a

rt s

hops

2

book

& a

rt s

hops

2

cine

ma

1

cine

ma

1

cine

ma

1

desi

gn &

arc

hite

ctur

e st

udio

s

45

med

ia

12

inte

rior d

esig

n sh

ops

75

galle

ries

6

galle

ries

6

galle

ries

6

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

rese

arch

inst

itute

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

1

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

4

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

trip

age

ncie

s

1

fash

ion

shop

s

2

galle

ries

6

galle

ries

6

galle

ries

6

fash

ion

shop

s

2

fash

ion

shop

s

2

beau

ty in

dust

ry

1 1

educ

atio

n

3

hote

l & h

oste

l

3bo

ok &

art

sho

ps2

book

& a

rt s

hops

2ci

nem

a1

cine

ma

1

inte

rior d

esig

n sh

ops

1

club

s

5

cine

ma

1

trip

age

ncy

club

s

5

club

s

5

desi

gn &

arc

hite

ctur

e st

udio

s

21

med

ia

13

galle

ries

7

galle

ries

7

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

15

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

15

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

15

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

15

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

15

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

2

spor

t act

iviti

es

4

spor

t act

iviti

es

4

fash

ion

shop

s

18

galle

ries

7

fash

ion

shop

s

18

galle

ries

7

galle

ries

7

galle

ries

7

fash

ion

shop

s

18

cine

ma

1

med

ia

8

galle

ries

3

cine

ma

1

galle

ries

3

cine

ma

1

galle

ries

3

galle

ries

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

galle

ries

3

galle

ries

3

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

1

spac

e fo

r eve

nts

1

spor

t act

iviti

es

1

spor

t act

iviti

es

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

2

soci

al p

roje

cts

2

soci

al p

roje

cts

2

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

2

soci

al p

roje

cts

2

thea

tre

2

thea

tre

2

thea

tre

2

core industry: design

core industry: fashion core industry: contemporary art core industry: art andand community

core industry: design & architecture

ArtplayMoscow

Flacon Moscow

VinzavodMoscow

core industry: media, design & architecture

Red OctoberMoscow

core industry: media

Analyzes of cultural clusters

Proekt Fabrika Moscow

Arma Moscow

ExRotaprintBerlin

independent businesses imitation of independent businesses

Structures of clusters

naturally formed district object formed as a district

med

ia

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

soci

al p

roje

cts

desi

gn &

arc

hite

ctur

e st

udio

inte

rior d

esig

n st

ores

11 1 847

book

& a

rt s

hops

1

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

book

& a

rt s

hops

1

art w

orks

hops

1

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

art w

orks

hops

1

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

art w

orks

hops

1

rest

aura

nts

& c

afes

1

soci

al p

roje

cts

8

soci

al p

roje

cts

8

soci

al p

roje

cts

8

55

Non-profit in fact is profitFormulating social initiatives in art clusters might to occur with the help of social entrepreneurship. The main principle of it is social impact: focus on the target solution/mitigation of existing social problems and socially sustainable, positive and measurable results; the unification of social problems with business principles often brings about success. Social entrepreneurs are engaged in tasks, which the state, with a limited role for itself, does not take part in. In other countries, particularly in Europe and South America there is strong engagement of government agencies, both nationally and locally.

Clusters might be owned by private companies or by the state. Toby Hyam, the Managing Director of Creative Space Man-agement Limited, made a clear classification of possible coop-eration options for the management of government property: the public sector owns and operates, the city/government/the public sector owns but private sector operates, the public sector retains but social enterprises operate, the public sector retains for a limited period but the social enterprise takes the asset when the delivery model is proven and sell the asset on the open market. Each kind of model has strengths and weak-nesses including method of control, bureaucratic restrictions, new ideas and energy/potential for funds.

Moreover, the meaning of profit is changing with time, as it transitions from the financial sphere to social capital value. Since the state or city is involved in the formation of the clus-ter by investing money, it means that places should create a public good for all, not only for the professional public. Indi-rectly, public good is increased through job creation and the fact that people are starting to pay more taxes. The formula-tion of social engagement between people through awareness of the difference of identities but with respect for each other's opinions helps to reduce alienation and exclusion in soci-ety. Different classes of people, mostly the disabled and eth-nic groups, communicate in closed circles. To develop links between people, they have to be in close proximity. Adding social initiatives to the cluster and using principles of social entrepreneurship will help to create a sustainable model with

the ability to engage people from different classes and com-munities. The aim of social engagement is to create more resilient and sustainable communities. It can be achieved in different ways: a language program for emigrants, an adult learning center, homework help for children, a music school, job service agency, a library where books can be checked out as well as donated, help for students, care for the disabled and school dropouts, a city garden where citizens can grow plants and take care of them. A mix of activities creates a mutual exchange and help for communication.To formulate a new art cluster, the following steps are neces-sary:

• Providetransportaccessibility:aconvenientwaytoaccess the art cluster by public and private transport;• Create a communication network for the tenantsand with the city: website, blog, events, etc.;• Usenon-randomlogicwhenchoosingtenants,cre-ate synergies in the art cluster: tenant-mix conception and networking between them; • Developaclearconceptwithaheadlineideatowhichother functions can be attached;• Include economic and business aspects so that themodel can be sustainable;• Haveatheoreticalbase:observationofglobalexperi-ence in the post-industrial transformation of buildings, his-torical overview of the place and creation of new value;• Understandthe targetgroup:analyzewho is livingin the area and might be interested in the formulated space and will be attracted by functions.

Keep and reuseThe research identified the aspects of reusing a historic build-ing. To begin with, the keep and reuse method is far more preferable because demolition and new construction add an extra weight to ecology. Also, reuse pays respect to society and to history. Second, it saves the identity of the place: contem-porary cities are very similar in their appearance. Heritage buildings have bright individual characters, and demolition leads to losing variety in the city. Third, the keep and reuse method helps to promote the value of collective memory – for each building an individual way of redevelopment should be used to avoid loss of identity. This concept should propose a new unique function and symbol. In the case of art being the new function, it is creating interesting opportunities for installations and a contrast with history.

The transformation of unused buildings to art clusters has a big impact on the neighborhood and the city: it removes dead points. It brings them back to life. It includes the buildings in the urban fabric: transport and social. Abandoned terri-tories become habitable. Some developers are using art clus-ters in the following way. They decide to build up the outly-ing areas, and these developments are specifically initiated by the appearance there of the cultural cluster. Then, they wait for the attractiveness of the area and real estate prices to increase. In this way, the cultural city-forming clusters are important for town planning.

Red and White ChambersReturning to the declared purpose of the research, it is impor-tant to present a historical overview of the Red and White Chambers in order to find an appropriate new function for this place.

The White and Red Chambers is an architectural ensemble from the seventeenth century, which consists of two- and three-storey buildings that were former dwellings. These buildings formulate an angle at two streets and a square. The appearance of the buildings reminds one of a fortress with small windows; it was a feature of middle age architecture. There are just a few dozen stone buildings of this type left in Moscow now. Most construction during this period was done in wood because of ecological and economic aspects. The most interesting part of the buildings is the inner-vault method of construction.

In 1972, demolition of these buildings was planned prior tothevisitofUnitedStatesPresidentRichardNixon.TheMos-cow government planned to make new park squares and cafes in this place to show the city in the best light. Having been inhabited for centuries, the buildings' original facades and architectural features were so obscured by successive renova-tion efforts that they appeared to have been constructed dur-ingtheSovietUnion.Buttheprofessionalarchitecturalsoci-ety headed by D. P. Vasilevskaya and E. V. Trubetskaya was against their demolition and undertook great measures to restore the buildings. Preservationists peeled away the newer layers, revealing the buildings' hidden historical value. By this time, the residents of these buildings had been moved from their apartments in preparation for their demolition, but activists wrote a letter to Brezhnev requesting their preserva-tion. The voice of the professional community had an effect, and two buildings were saved, but the third was demolished. A monument to Engels now stands in this place, but the under-ground cellars with vaults were saved and can be repurposed.It must be said that the public fight to rescind the decree to demolish the Chambers was an important step in the begin-ning of the urban preservation movement.

Losing, gaining and warningAleksey Ilich Komech was an important public figure and a member of the Federal Scientific-Methodological Council for the Protection of Cultural Monuments. Komech was an active defender of architectural heritage in Moscow and was the main editor of books titled Black, White and Red, which concerned the destiny of Russian cultural heritage. Usingthis publication, Komech and his colleagues hoped to draw attention to the fact that in times of peace no fewer buildings were destroyed and disfigured by the unskilled "restoration" of monuments than the number lost during wars and revolu-tions.

The black volume presents palpable evidence of beauty of heritage that no longer exists in the architectural landscape. This book is about losing. A historical building from the sev-enteenth century, the House of the Lopuhov family, which wasdemolishedin1972,andanarchitecturalensembleoftheRed and White Chambers is shown in this book. The loss of the angular building that people called "the iron" deprived the city of a monument from the seventeenth century and a visual border from the southwest. According to D.P. Vasilevs-kya: "It was perfectly a decorated square in state protection, however, it was in a terrible condition." But this building had been demolished because of the need to put the monument to Engels in public view. For this reason, this building will go by the name of Black Chambers in my research, for the Moscow which does not exist anymore.

The white volume is devoted to the results of restoration activ-ities in the twentieth century. Tens of thousands of buildings were destroyed, but at the same time thousands of monu-ments were restored. The symbolical meaning of this book is gaining. The White and Red Chambers, which were saved by Brezhnev and the architectural society, are mentioned in this book as an example of social activity and respect for heritage.The third red volume is similar to the Red book on endangered species of flora and fauna and includes photographs of monu-ments of culture that have remained in dangerous conditions for decades and are almost condemned to failure. Warning is the key word of description in the book.

ExRotaprint, Berlin

http

://w

ww

.exr

otap

rint

.de/

"White book" - gaining"Black book" - losing "Red book" - warning

56

Non-profit in fact is profitFormulating social initiatives in art clusters might to occur with the help of social entrepreneurship. The main principle of it is social impact: focus on the target solution/mitigation of existing social problems and socially sustainable, positive and measurable results; the unification of social problems with business principles often brings about success. Social entrepreneurs are engaged in tasks, which the state, with a limited role for itself, does not take part in. In other countries, particularly in Europe and South America there is strong engagement of government agencies, both nationally and locally.

Clusters might be owned by private companies or by the state. Toby Hyam, the Managing Director of Creative Space Man-agement Limited, made a clear classification of possible coop-eration options for the management of government property: the public sector owns and operates, the city/government/the public sector owns but private sector operates, the public sector retains but social enterprises operate, the public sector retains for a limited period but the social enterprise takes the asset when the delivery model is proven and sell the asset on the open market. Each kind of model has strengths and weak-nesses including method of control, bureaucratic restrictions, new ideas and energy/potential for funds.

Moreover, the meaning of profit is changing with time, as it transitions from the financial sphere to social capital value. Since the state or city is involved in the formation of the clus-ter by investing money, it means that places should create a public good for all, not only for the professional public. Indi-rectly, public good is increased through job creation and the fact that people are starting to pay more taxes. The formula-tion of social engagement between people through awareness of the difference of identities but with respect for each other's opinions helps to reduce alienation and exclusion in soci-ety. Different classes of people, mostly the disabled and eth-nic groups, communicate in closed circles. To develop links between people, they have to be in close proximity. Adding social initiatives to the cluster and using principles of social entrepreneurship will help to create a sustainable model with

the ability to engage people from different classes and com-munities. The aim of social engagement is to create more resilient and sustainable communities. It can be achieved in different ways: a language program for emigrants, an adult learning center, homework help for children, a music school, job service agency, a library where books can be checked out as well as donated, help for students, care for the disabled and school dropouts, a city garden where citizens can grow plants and take care of them. A mix of activities creates a mutual exchange and help for communication.To formulate a new art cluster, the following steps are neces-sary:

• Providetransportaccessibility:aconvenientwaytoaccess the art cluster by public and private transport;• Create a communication network for the tenantsand with the city: website, blog, events, etc.;• Usenon-randomlogicwhenchoosingtenants,cre-ate synergies in the art cluster: tenant-mix conception and networking between them; • Developaclearconceptwithaheadlineideatowhichother functions can be attached;• Include economic and business aspects so that themodel can be sustainable;• Haveatheoreticalbase:observationofglobalexperi-ence in the post-industrial transformation of buildings, his-torical overview of the place and creation of new value;• Understandthe targetgroup:analyzewho is livingin the area and might be interested in the formulated space and will be attracted by functions.

Keep and reuseThe research identified the aspects of reusing a historic build-ing. To begin with, the keep and reuse method is far more preferable because demolition and new construction add an extra weight to ecology. Also, reuse pays respect to society and to history. Second, it saves the identity of the place: contem-porary cities are very similar in their appearance. Heritage buildings have bright individual characters, and demolition leads to losing variety in the city. Third, the keep and reuse method helps to promote the value of collective memory – for each building an individual way of redevelopment should be used to avoid loss of identity. This concept should propose a new unique function and symbol. In the case of art being the new function, it is creating interesting opportunities for installations and a contrast with history.

The transformation of unused buildings to art clusters has a big impact on the neighborhood and the city: it removes dead points. It brings them back to life. It includes the buildings in the urban fabric: transport and social. Abandoned terri-tories become habitable. Some developers are using art clus-ters in the following way. They decide to build up the outly-ing areas, and these developments are specifically initiated by the appearance there of the cultural cluster. Then, they wait for the attractiveness of the area and real estate prices to increase. In this way, the cultural city-forming clusters are important for town planning.

Red and White ChambersReturning to the declared purpose of the research, it is impor-tant to present a historical overview of the Red and White Chambers in order to find an appropriate new function for this place.

The White and Red Chambers is an architectural ensemble from the seventeenth century, which consists of two- and three-storey buildings that were former dwellings. These buildings formulate an angle at two streets and a square. The appearance of the buildings reminds one of a fortress with small windows; it was a feature of middle age architecture. There are just a few dozen stone buildings of this type left in Moscow now. Most construction during this period was done in wood because of ecological and economic aspects. The most interesting part of the buildings is the inner-vault method of construction.

In 1972, demolition of these buildings was planned prior tothevisitofUnitedStatesPresidentRichardNixon.TheMos-cow government planned to make new park squares and cafes in this place to show the city in the best light. Having been inhabited for centuries, the buildings' original facades and architectural features were so obscured by successive renova-tion efforts that they appeared to have been constructed dur-ingtheSovietUnion.Buttheprofessionalarchitecturalsoci-ety headed by D. P. Vasilevskaya and E. V. Trubetskaya was against their demolition and undertook great measures to restore the buildings. Preservationists peeled away the newer layers, revealing the buildings' hidden historical value. By this time, the residents of these buildings had been moved from their apartments in preparation for their demolition, but activists wrote a letter to Brezhnev requesting their preserva-tion. The voice of the professional community had an effect, and two buildings were saved, but the third was demolished. A monument to Engels now stands in this place, but the under-ground cellars with vaults were saved and can be repurposed.It must be said that the public fight to rescind the decree to demolish the Chambers was an important step in the begin-ning of the urban preservation movement.

Losing, gaining and warningAleksey Ilich Komech was an important public figure and a member of the Federal Scientific-Methodological Council for the Protection of Cultural Monuments. Komech was an active defender of architectural heritage in Moscow and was the main editor of books titled Black, White and Red, which concerned the destiny of Russian cultural heritage. Usingthis publication, Komech and his colleagues hoped to draw attention to the fact that in times of peace no fewer buildings were destroyed and disfigured by the unskilled "restoration" of monuments than the number lost during wars and revolu-tions.

The black volume presents palpable evidence of beauty of heritage that no longer exists in the architectural landscape. This book is about losing. A historical building from the sev-enteenth century, the House of the Lopuhov family, which wasdemolishedin1972,andanarchitecturalensembleoftheRed and White Chambers is shown in this book. The loss of the angular building that people called "the iron" deprived the city of a monument from the seventeenth century and a visual border from the southwest. According to D.P. Vasilevs-kya: "It was perfectly a decorated square in state protection, however, it was in a terrible condition." But this building had been demolished because of the need to put the monument to Engels in public view. For this reason, this building will go by the name of Black Chambers in my research, for the Moscow which does not exist anymore.

The white volume is devoted to the results of restoration activ-ities in the twentieth century. Tens of thousands of buildings were destroyed, but at the same time thousands of monu-ments were restored. The symbolical meaning of this book is gaining. The White and Red Chambers, which were saved by Brezhnev and the architectural society, are mentioned in this book as an example of social activity and respect for heritage.The third red volume is similar to the Red book on endangered species of flora and fauna and includes photographs of monu-ments of culture that have remained in dangerous conditions for decades and are almost condemned to failure. Warning is the key word of description in the book.

ExRotaprint, Berlin

http

://w

ww

.exr

otap

rint

.de/

"White book" - gaining"Black book" - losing "Red book" - warning

57

The cluster as a social activator in the Red and White Cham-bers

By analyzing the Moscow and Berlin examples of art clusters, I am formulating a concept for a new socio-cultural cluster in Moscow, the Red and White Chambers. Now is the time for social initiatives, places where citizens can meet with art and communicate with the government. Organizing a socio-cul-tural cluster in a historical site that is not used in a proper way gives the city a chance to create a catalyst for the redevelop-ment of the territory, which is based on the energy of society. The owner of the Red and White Chambers is the government in the form of the Department of Cultural Heritage. For this reason, the headline idea for the new cluster is architectural preservation. This department understands the value of the place and is now searching of an effective way to use it.

In answering to the question “what content is suitable for a repurposed heritage building”, the stakeholder should ask himself the following key questions:• Howcanthenewfunctionrespecttheheritageofthebuilding?• Forwhomarethenewfunctions?• Howcanthenewfunctionbefinanciallysustainablein a long term?

The answer to the first question is to formulate a concept for developing the architectural heritage within the framework of the stakeholder, Mosgornasledie. Around this headline idea, a respect to history and to people who are defending is shown. The niche of talks about the cultural heritage does not have a permanent place in Moscow. All over the world historical cit-ies have similar places: the Architecture Foundation in Chi-cago, the Architectural Club in London and The Netherlands Architecture Institute in Rotterdam. But this topic is becom-ing increasingly important for the public if we pay attention to the growing number of articles and lectures about it. The Red and White Chambers can become such a place in Mos-cow.

As with any other cluster, attention should be paid to which classes of people the project is oriented. In accordance with the main idea of preservation, we have two classes of people: those from non-governmental organizations for conservation and restorers. Comparing these people to the symbolic colors in Komech's books, we see two classes of people. The first ca-

tegory can be defined as red, or those who defend the life of dying heritage, while the white category represents those who breathe life into monuments through restoration. But if we focus only on these two classes of professionals, we will see a repeat of what has happened in all the existing clusters in Moscow--lack of citizen involvement. Bringing Berlin's expe-rience in forming a new cluster, it can be assumed which kind of people can be involved in the cluster with the main theme of heritage. To formulate social demands and understand who the potential visitors of a socio-cultural cluster might be, it is necessary to analyze the area around the historical site. This area should extend to all areas within a 20 minute walk of the site (transport, formats of cultural spots, dwelling, business, school, public spaces). Potential visitors to the center include residents of the neighborhood (people with a high income, the residents of Ostozhenka and the Golden Mile, foreign-ers), tourists, students at nearby universities, children, ethnic groups (two ethnic schools: Iraq and Georgia) and Muscovites because of the sites close proximity to transport.

The point is not just to involve these people in the cluster but also to create a base where their engagement can occur. For a more illustrative example of how it is possible to engage them, each type is assigned its own color in the scheme: red – people from public non-government organizations of preservation (Archnadzor, Maps, etc.), white – professionals, dark blue - neighborhood residents, violet - tourists, yellow - children, orange - ethnic groups, brown - retired people, blue - students. As the project is oriented on the structure of the White and Red Chambers, a division between the white and red people in these two buildings could be proposed. This division does not mean that other people cannot be there, but it is just the concept idea for the formulation of the inner fill-ing of functions.

There is a big courtyard between White and Red Chambers, which could be named Black Chambers and play a role in the place of engagement in the two thematic directions. Black Chambers is a place about the Moscow that no longer exists, a place of nostalgia and a reminder to manage heritage care-fully. This courtyard can be a connection between the white and the red, between the citizens and government, locals and emigrants. In most cases, in Moscow these classes are sepa-rated from each other, but union in one place will help these classes to hear other opinions, to share ideas and to be more integrated in society.

In the form of a sketch, the following possible intersections of people are proposed for the following list of activities in the operational model for different days of the week. On week-days, this complex aims to create a friendly academic envi-ronment in accordance with the colors of the concept.

In the red building, it is proposed to locate an “open office” of Mosgornasledie as the representative organization for pres-ervation and a stakeholder in the place. “Open office” means that this is a place where any visitors can come and receive information about the city: maps, make an inquiry about their house, read archive books. The department of cultural heritage has an enormous amount of information about the city which can be shared with citizens. Around this headline organization, spaces with multiple architectural functions are grouped according to whether the enterprises aim to work with existing heritage, reuse it or create new projects. In the white building, a restoration school will be located that will serve professionals and the common public because this branch of professional education in Russia needs to be strengthened. Since the red building is not in the best condi-tion, practical work can be applied to it. The activities could change throughout the day: in the morning there could be col-laboration with city schools conducting lessons on architec-ture and heritage and during the afternoon there could be a school for dropouts, guided by the example of ExRotaprint in Berlin. Through cooperation with public organizations, teen-agers who come from families with social problems could be nominated for the program. Within the socio-cultural cluster,

a special program could be created to familiarize individuals with architecture, design, preservation, and heritage restora-tion in order to enter the Institute and develop the necessary skills for it. It may be possible to involve volunteers from the art profession in a program to help young children from low-income families in creative workshops. This may be the next group of people: creative students from nearby institutions or people in retirement who have free time and desire to teach their skills. In the evening, the same workshops can be held for all those interested, but with a fee requirement. Profits from the cluster would go to social programs in addition to fund state support.

At the weekends, festivals can be organized. All the afore-mentioned groups of people can spend their time inside the buildings and outside in the courtyard. In the space named Black Chambers, a schedule with activities is formulated: sto-rytelling about the city through private stories from citizens (Psychogeography), workshops with architects, exhibitions of student work (photography, models, art work), lectures about the city. Bringing together these different types of people from the colors already mentioned facilitates their engage-ment and communication.

One more proposal is to create at the Chambers a temporary residence for Russian and foreign architects, artists, urban-ists. Participation in this program will require providing free educational events to the public.

Phot

o by

Eri

c Va

leev

58

The cluster as a social activator in the Red and White Cham-bers

By analyzing the Moscow and Berlin examples of art clusters, I am formulating a concept for a new socio-cultural cluster in Moscow, the Red and White Chambers. Now is the time for social initiatives, places where citizens can meet with art and communicate with the government. Organizing a socio-cul-tural cluster in a historical site that is not used in a proper way gives the city a chance to create a catalyst for the redevelop-ment of the territory, which is based on the energy of society. The owner of the Red and White Chambers is the government in the form of the Department of Cultural Heritage. For this reason, the headline idea for the new cluster is architectural preservation. This department understands the value of the place and is now searching of an effective way to use it.

In answering to the question “what content is suitable for a repurposed heritage building”, the stakeholder should ask himself the following key questions:• Howcanthenewfunctionrespecttheheritageofthebuilding?• Forwhomarethenewfunctions?• Howcanthenewfunctionbefinanciallysustainablein a long term?

The answer to the first question is to formulate a concept for developing the architectural heritage within the framework of the stakeholder, Mosgornasledie. Around this headline idea, a respect to history and to people who are defending is shown. The niche of talks about the cultural heritage does not have a permanent place in Moscow. All over the world historical cit-ies have similar places: the Architecture Foundation in Chi-cago, the Architectural Club in London and The Netherlands Architecture Institute in Rotterdam. But this topic is becom-ing increasingly important for the public if we pay attention to the growing number of articles and lectures about it. The Red and White Chambers can become such a place in Mos-cow.

As with any other cluster, attention should be paid to which classes of people the project is oriented. In accordance with the main idea of preservation, we have two classes of people: those from non-governmental organizations for conservation and restorers. Comparing these people to the symbolic colors in Komech's books, we see two classes of people. The first ca-

tegory can be defined as red, or those who defend the life of dying heritage, while the white category represents those who breathe life into monuments through restoration. But if we focus only on these two classes of professionals, we will see a repeat of what has happened in all the existing clusters in Moscow--lack of citizen involvement. Bringing Berlin's expe-rience in forming a new cluster, it can be assumed which kind of people can be involved in the cluster with the main theme of heritage. To formulate social demands and understand who the potential visitors of a socio-cultural cluster might be, it is necessary to analyze the area around the historical site. This area should extend to all areas within a 20 minute walk of the site (transport, formats of cultural spots, dwelling, business, school, public spaces). Potential visitors to the center include residents of the neighborhood (people with a high income, the residents of Ostozhenka and the Golden Mile, foreign-ers), tourists, students at nearby universities, children, ethnic groups (two ethnic schools: Iraq and Georgia) and Muscovites because of the sites close proximity to transport.

The point is not just to involve these people in the cluster but also to create a base where their engagement can occur. For a more illustrative example of how it is possible to engage them, each type is assigned its own color in the scheme: red – people from public non-government organizations of preservation (Archnadzor, Maps, etc.), white – professionals, dark blue - neighborhood residents, violet - tourists, yellow - children, orange - ethnic groups, brown - retired people, blue - students. As the project is oriented on the structure of the White and Red Chambers, a division between the white and red people in these two buildings could be proposed. This division does not mean that other people cannot be there, but it is just the concept idea for the formulation of the inner fill-ing of functions.

There is a big courtyard between White and Red Chambers, which could be named Black Chambers and play a role in the place of engagement in the two thematic directions. Black Chambers is a place about the Moscow that no longer exists, a place of nostalgia and a reminder to manage heritage care-fully. This courtyard can be a connection between the white and the red, between the citizens and government, locals and emigrants. In most cases, in Moscow these classes are sepa-rated from each other, but union in one place will help these classes to hear other opinions, to share ideas and to be more integrated in society.

In the form of a sketch, the following possible intersections of people are proposed for the following list of activities in the operational model for different days of the week. On week-days, this complex aims to create a friendly academic envi-ronment in accordance with the colors of the concept.

In the red building, it is proposed to locate an “open office” of Mosgornasledie as the representative organization for pres-ervation and a stakeholder in the place. “Open office” means that this is a place where any visitors can come and receive information about the city: maps, make an inquiry about their house, read archive books. The department of cultural heritage has an enormous amount of information about the city which can be shared with citizens. Around this headline organization, spaces with multiple architectural functions are grouped according to whether the enterprises aim to work with existing heritage, reuse it or create new projects. In the white building, a restoration school will be located that will serve professionals and the common public because this branch of professional education in Russia needs to be strengthened. Since the red building is not in the best condi-tion, practical work can be applied to it. The activities could change throughout the day: in the morning there could be col-laboration with city schools conducting lessons on architec-ture and heritage and during the afternoon there could be a school for dropouts, guided by the example of ExRotaprint in Berlin. Through cooperation with public organizations, teen-agers who come from families with social problems could be nominated for the program. Within the socio-cultural cluster,

a special program could be created to familiarize individuals with architecture, design, preservation, and heritage restora-tion in order to enter the Institute and develop the necessary skills for it. It may be possible to involve volunteers from the art profession in a program to help young children from low-income families in creative workshops. This may be the next group of people: creative students from nearby institutions or people in retirement who have free time and desire to teach their skills. In the evening, the same workshops can be held for all those interested, but with a fee requirement. Profits from the cluster would go to social programs in addition to fund state support.

At the weekends, festivals can be organized. All the afore-mentioned groups of people can spend their time inside the buildings and outside in the courtyard. In the space named Black Chambers, a schedule with activities is formulated: sto-rytelling about the city through private stories from citizens (Psychogeography), workshops with architects, exhibitions of student work (photography, models, art work), lectures about the city. Bringing together these different types of people from the colors already mentioned facilitates their engage-ment and communication.

One more proposal is to create at the Chambers a temporary residence for Russian and foreign architects, artists, urban-ists. Participation in this program will require providing free educational events to the public.

Phot

o by

Eri

c Va

leev

59

Having analyzed the Moscow and Berlin models with a social toolkit and having oriented the main issue of stakeholder to this place, the creation of a non-profit center for organiza-tions interested in social and cultural projects related to archi-tecture, urban design and preservation can be proposed. For the concept of the socio-cultural space for the Red and White Chambers, it is preferable to select one of Toby Hyam's afore-mentioned classifications: the public sector will retain own-ership but social enterprise operates because of the ability to organize non-commercial structure with a profit of social capital. This type is chosen because the government could receive more social profit in cooperation with the organiza-tion that will drive relationships in the public-private part-nership. The strengths of this method include retaining some control for the public's interest. However, the operator may be more likely to share these objectives and to bring new ideas and energy/potential for funds. But the weaknesses should also be considered. The concepts proposed by these compa-nies may not be economically sustainable. An important com-ponent of the partnership is the choice of the curator, who is able to define the development of the project, to determine the topic and find appropriate methods of funding.

Use of this scheme to implement social entrepreneurship and a public-private partnership will allow for the creation of a cluster in the Chamber buildings. Businesses participating in the Chamber buildings cluster can support society by donat-ing a portion of or all their profits to social programs. This type of cluster can be characterized as social-cultural. Adding new people, which is unusual for Moscow art clusters, and mixing them with the professional community helps people to engage, combining the mutual enrichment of interests and blurring the boundaries between classes. In this way, the clus-ter becomes a social magnet. Illumination of the questions forming the urban environment, preservation of monuments and heritage will help to create new attitudes and outlooks on the urban environment. Involving new types of people in the conservation effort will strengthen the white and red organi-zations fighting for heritage, thus creating a new color of peo-ple that eventually could lead to a reduction in the number of sites falling into the "Black book”.

Bibliography

1) Christian Schittich. In Detail Building in Existing Fabric. Munchen: Birkhäuser Architecture, 2003.

2) Loretta Lees, Tom Slater Elvin Wyly. The Gentrification Reader. London: Routledge, 2007.

3) Ed. A.I.Komech. Black book. White book. Red book.Moscow: Iskusstvo - XXI vek,2003.

4) Charles Landry. Creative city. London: Earthscan, 2000.

5) David T. Beito. The Voluntary City: Choice, Community and Civil Society. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2002.

6) Dr Julie Carr. Creative industries, creative workers and the crea-tive economy. Edinburgh: Queens Printers os Scotland, 2009.

7) Katja Ruutu. New cultural Art Centres in Moscow and St. Peter-burg. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics, 2010.

60

Having analyzed the Moscow and Berlin models with a social toolkit and having oriented the main issue of stakeholder to this place, the creation of a non-profit center for organiza-tions interested in social and cultural projects related to archi-tecture, urban design and preservation can be proposed. For the concept of the socio-cultural space for the Red and White Chambers, it is preferable to select one of Toby Hyam's afore-mentioned classifications: the public sector will retain own-ership but social enterprise operates because of the ability to organize non-commercial structure with a profit of social capital. This type is chosen because the government could receive more social profit in cooperation with the organiza-tion that will drive relationships in the public-private part-nership. The strengths of this method include retaining some control for the public's interest. However, the operator may be more likely to share these objectives and to bring new ideas and energy/potential for funds. But the weaknesses should also be considered. The concepts proposed by these compa-nies may not be economically sustainable. An important com-ponent of the partnership is the choice of the curator, who is able to define the development of the project, to determine the topic and find appropriate methods of funding.

Use of this scheme to implement social entrepreneurship and a public-private partnership will allow for the creation of a cluster in the Chamber buildings. Businesses participating in the Chamber buildings cluster can support society by donat-ing a portion of or all their profits to social programs. This type of cluster can be characterized as social-cultural. Adding new people, which is unusual for Moscow art clusters, and mixing them with the professional community helps people to engage, combining the mutual enrichment of interests and blurring the boundaries between classes. In this way, the clus-ter becomes a social magnet. Illumination of the questions forming the urban environment, preservation of monuments and heritage will help to create new attitudes and outlooks on the urban environment. Involving new types of people in the conservation effort will strengthen the white and red organi-zations fighting for heritage, thus creating a new color of peo-ple that eventually could lead to a reduction in the number of sites falling into the "Black book”.

Bibliography

1) Christian Schittich. In Detail Building in Existing Fabric. Munchen: Birkhäuser Architecture, 2003.

2) Loretta Lees, Tom Slater Elvin Wyly. The Gentrification Reader. London: Routledge, 2007.

3) Ed. A.I.Komech. Black book. White book. Red book.Moscow: Iskusstvo - XXI vek,2003.

4) Charles Landry. Creative city. London: Earthscan, 2000.

5) David T. Beito. The Voluntary City: Choice, Community and Civil Society. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2002.

6) Dr Julie Carr. Creative industries, creative workers and the crea-tive economy. Edinburgh: Queens Printers os Scotland, 2009.

7) Katja Ruutu. New cultural Art Centres in Moscow and St. Peter-burg. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics, 2010.

61

62

Extract from the article «Don’t speak Russian only» at Gazeta.ru

Not too long ago Russian was spoken by people belonging to the elite in practically every country. Tens of thousands of Asians, Latin Americans, Africans and Europeans from the east and west studied in Lenin Hills or in Makhachkala: thoroughly studying law and diplomacy in addition to Anna Karenina and nuclear physics. If you follow the paths taken by graduates of Soviet higher education institutions through the post-colonial world and the world following the Cold War, then it is hardly possible to imagine a network more saturated and global. Who have these people now become?

Among the most widespread world languages, Russian, according to official statistics, occupies eighth place today with 290 million native speakers. It goes without saying that less than twenty or thirty years ago all those in the communist system studied Russian. However, geopolitical pressure is not the only problem. It is possible that the problem is that in Russia people speak only Russian. Although the language has been invaded by global business expressions such as office, content, townhouse and even the word business itself, in my opinion, the average manager is not capable of speaking acceptable English. Moscow is the largest city in Europe, but public communication in Moscow knows no language other than Russian. And those who do not know the Cyrillic alphabet look like defenseless babes.

The process of globalization has shown that large cities with culturally homogenous populations are the very ones that are closed and find it very difficult to master English or Globalese. Whatever may be said about this strange and simplified version of the language of Shakespeare and Franklin, today it is an essential tool for communication and dialogue around the world. And in worldwide competition. Even in the most Anglo-Saxon circles today it is accepted that the combination of English with another native language is the best precondition for individualism and society in order to conform with the demands of an unlimited world of communication. (Will English someday be squeezed out by Chinese?)

In my opinion, it is more important to understand whether Russia will adopt the bilingual model for today's growing generation? The time of a world system that spoke Russian for the near future is falling into the past. Russia undoubtedly should preserve the Russian language (and perhaps even strive to curtail innovations such as cottage [now Russian word]), and in the future we need to hope that in speaking to ourselves we will converse in impeccable Russian. However, to a foreign observer it seems that this country has something to tell to people "outside". In Moscow and out in the sticks, fantastic intellectuals, researchers, artists and entrepreneurs haven't been translated. At present, we are witnessing a social experiment on the formation of a new democracy and the transformation of the relationship between the government and the people, which has meaning for all social development from western Europe to China. Cities such as Moscow hold great potential for international tourism and the development of different forms of life in the metropolis, which is all the more attractive for global society. Namely for this reason Russia needs to learn to speak Globalese. Imagine: "Moscow speaks" -- and the entire world listens with bated breath...

Michael Schindhelm, March 21, 2012

63

64

The university campus in Moscow through years: diversity in transformation Maria Semenenko

Hypothesis: The remains of ‘Friendship of Nations’ policy can be used to create a cosmopolitan canopy (a place that provides an opportunity for diverse strangers to come together and be exposed to each other).

Abstract: In my research, I focused on a very specific and special place within Moscow, the campus of the People’s Friendship University of Russia. In the USSR, it was a physical topos, real-life implementation of ‘Friendship of Nations’ policy; foreign students came here to study in Moscow and then left. Today, it has turned into a neighborhood with shops, cafes and restaurants where Russians are technically able to come. By observing the activities within this area, I looked at the interaction of two concepts: the “Friendship of Nations” policy and some characteristics of the cosmopolitan canopy. Taking into account the high level of intolerance in Moscow and the fact that in the nearest future a lot of newcom-ers will arrive here, the transformation experience of the campus can be used to understand how to create in Moscow a less hostile environment toward ethnic difference and build a functioning model of a multicultural community.

My research is divided into two parts. In the first part, I traced back the history to understand the effect of the Friendship of Nations policy on the idea of ethnicity in the USSR and how it influenced today’s situation. In the second part, I am focusing on Moscow as the geographical center of this policy and observing the area of campus that reveals the interaction between the remains of the Soviet past and the conception of the so-called cosmopolitan canopy.

Part IDiversity under control: ‘Friendship of Nations’ policy in the USSR

My historical research was aimed at analyzing how the Soviet ethnical policy was created. To under-stand this, I traced back to Stalin's ‘Friendship of Nations’ concept, which was introduced in 1938. This concept was the basis of the official policy regarding ethnic difference within the Soviet Union from 1938 until it collapsed in 1991.

According to ethnologist Sergei Sokolovski’s essay Structures of Russian political discourse on nationality problems,

“the term ‘nation’ itself is interpreted in Rus-sian academic, political, and public realms

exclusively as ethnic nation. The concept still bears the stamp of Stalin’s definition of a

nation as a community of people with objec-tive characteristics (common territory,

economy, language, and physic organization)”1 .

In comparison with western European countries where all people are first regarded as citizens of the state and only then ethnic characteristics such as language, culture and traditions follow, in Russia first part is somehow missing. This fact breeds the danger of using ethnic differences to explain reasons why someone does not like the behavior of other people. But ethnicity cannot be changed, it can be only accepted or expelled. So, such an interpretation creates the basis for the intolerant attitude towards ethnic difference. This lack of political nation concept in modern Russia marks the fact that the latter is still not a nation state per se. I would like to present as an example a recent incident in Chelyabinsk, a Russian city in the Urals, which shows very well the fact that ethnicity is often used to explain behavior. The police asked the director of lyceum 31 to provide information about those students who originate from the Caucasus in order to arrange “preventive anti-criminal measures”. The director refused, answering that they ‘only have one ethnicity at their school which is math’. This request contradicts Article 26 of the Russian Federation Constitution that declares that Russian citizens cannot be forced to show their ethnicity and they have the right to decline to disclose this information2. Introducing the new principle ‘Friendship of nations’, Stalin was aiming to replace the old concept of the family of nations with a new one. It was done in several ways. First, according to the fact that dur-ing Soviet times it was obligatory for every person to belong to any ethnicity officially approved by the Communist party, the ethnicity could be easily replaced if it did not match the official list.

Moreover, national identity was not something flexible. The social life of the Soviet person depended on what ethnicity he or she belonged to. It was obligatory to point out your ethnicity in all documents (ID, military card, employment record book and even the school class register). At the same time, there was no freedom of choice in this field. According to the resolution of the NKVD enacted on April 2, 1938, ethnicity was inherited strictly from parents.

1Sokolovski S., Structures of Russian

political discourse on nationality

problems.-M.:1997.-P.6.

The Moscow university campus

"Moscow made us friends"

2Ria.ru,Скандал вокруг запроса об учениках-кавказцев в Челябинске (23.05.2012)

65

The university campus in Moscow through years: diversity in transformation Maria Semenenko

Hypothesis: The remains of ‘Friendship of Nations’ policy can be used to create a cosmopolitan canopy (a place that provides an opportunity for diverse strangers to come together and be exposed to each other).

Abstract: In my research, I focused on a very specific and special place within Moscow, the campus of the People’s Friendship University of Russia. In the USSR, it was a physical topos, real-life implementation of ‘Friendship of Nations’ policy; foreign students came here to study in Moscow and then left. Today, it has turned into a neighborhood with shops, cafes and restaurants where Russians are technically able to come. By observing the activities within this area, I looked at the interaction of two concepts: the “Friendship of Nations” policy and some characteristics of the cosmopolitan canopy. Taking into account the high level of intolerance in Moscow and the fact that in the nearest future a lot of newcom-ers will arrive here, the transformation experience of the campus can be used to understand how to create in Moscow a less hostile environment toward ethnic difference and build a functioning model of a multicultural community.

My research is divided into two parts. In the first part, I traced back the history to understand the effect of the Friendship of Nations policy on the idea of ethnicity in the USSR and how it influenced today’s situation. In the second part, I am focusing on Moscow as the geographical center of this policy and observing the area of campus that reveals the interaction between the remains of the Soviet past and the conception of the so-called cosmopolitan canopy.

Part IDiversity under control: ‘Friendship of Nations’ policy in the USSR

My historical research was aimed at analyzing how the Soviet ethnical policy was created. To under-stand this, I traced back to Stalin's ‘Friendship of Nations’ concept, which was introduced in 1938. This concept was the basis of the official policy regarding ethnic difference within the Soviet Union from 1938 until it collapsed in 1991.

According to ethnologist Sergei Sokolovski’s essay Structures of Russian political discourse on nationality problems,

“the term ‘nation’ itself is interpreted in Rus-sian academic, political, and public realms

exclusively as ethnic nation. The concept still bears the stamp of Stalin’s definition of a

nation as a community of people with objec-tive characteristics (common territory,

economy, language, and physic organization)”1 .

In comparison with western European countries where all people are first regarded as citizens of the state and only then ethnic characteristics such as language, culture and traditions follow, in Russia first part is somehow missing. This fact breeds the danger of using ethnic differences to explain reasons why someone does not like the behavior of other people. But ethnicity cannot be changed, it can be only accepted or expelled. So, such an interpretation creates the basis for the intolerant attitude towards ethnic difference. This lack of political nation concept in modern Russia marks the fact that the latter is still not a nation state per se. I would like to present as an example a recent incident in Chelyabinsk, a Russian city in the Urals, which shows very well the fact that ethnicity is often used to explain behavior. The police asked the director of lyceum 31 to provide information about those students who originate from the Caucasus in order to arrange “preventive anti-criminal measures”. The director refused, answering that they ‘only have one ethnicity at their school which is math’. This request contradicts Article 26 of the Russian Federation Constitution that declares that Russian citizens cannot be forced to show their ethnicity and they have the right to decline to disclose this information2. Introducing the new principle ‘Friendship of nations’, Stalin was aiming to replace the old concept of the family of nations with a new one. It was done in several ways. First, according to the fact that dur-ing Soviet times it was obligatory for every person to belong to any ethnicity officially approved by the Communist party, the ethnicity could be easily replaced if it did not match the official list.

Moreover, national identity was not something flexible. The social life of the Soviet person depended on what ethnicity he or she belonged to. It was obligatory to point out your ethnicity in all documents (ID, military card, employment record book and even the school class register). At the same time, there was no freedom of choice in this field. According to the resolution of the NKVD enacted on April 2, 1938, ethnicity was inherited strictly from parents.

1Sokolovski S., Structures of Russian

political discourse on nationality

problems.-M.:1997.-P.6.

The Moscow university campus

"Moscow made us friends"

2Ria.ru,Скандал вокруг запроса об учениках-кавказцев в Челябинске (23.05.2012)

66

Thus, in contrast to the nation-state model, Stalin’s ethnical policy was an example of the imperial model that implied non-flexible links to ethnicity (or religion as it was in Imperial Russia). According to historian Terry Martin’s book ‘The Affirmative Action Empire’1 , the Soviet model was unique in the sense that it supported ethnic minorities’ interests such as national cultures and traditions even more than Russians’. It contributed to the development of non-political components of ethnic minorities’ national identities. At the same time, national elites were suppressed if their actions were aimed at promoting their national interests more than state interests. So,

A military card; a birth certificate,

source: www.caraimica.org

ethnic minorities were forced to look different but not to think different.

Second, creation of the Soviet “Family of Nations” involved dismantling and restructuring existing families and cultures. This dismantling process involved physical, social and psychological violence. According to the NKVD act enacted in 1937, children of three to 15 years of age whose parents were imprisoned were sent to state-run orphanages. Children who were 15-years-old and above were sent to camps. They usually were given new names.

Third, people were replaced physically. There were several stages of the so-called forced migration that was aimed at national minorities living at the border areas of the USSR such as Baltic people, Western Ukrainians and Byelorussians, Finns, Poles, Caucasus people and Koreans among others. These border peoples were classified as potential “enemies of the state.” Border “cleanup” operations were held in 1931-38, 1940-41, 1941-45 and 1947-52. According to the information that I received from ‘Memorial’, an organization that is dealing with Stalin's terror, in total about 2.8 million people were replaced during these years2. People were expelled from their native lands and sent to very remote, under-populated areas such as Western Siberia, the Far East and the Soviet Asian republics. The national communi-ties were also split into many smaller parts and dispersed over the whole country. Due to the inhu-man deportation conditions a lot of people died or if they stayed alive during the trip people could die because they were not able to adapt to the new way of living. For instance, if according to the All-Union Census in 1939 there were 143,432 Finns in the USSR, by 1959 their population had decreased drastically to 97,717. At the same time, in place of the deported nations the empty regions were inhabited by the Red Army. So-called ‘Red Army kolkhozes’ appeared on the border areas of the USSR.

Did Russians have any privileges in comparison to other Soviet nations? Answering these questions I took into account the well-known fact that until 1990 the Russian Soviet Republic was the only Soviet republic that did not have its own representative institute. It is often used to prove the opinion that Russians were more suppressed than other peoples in the USSR. But there were reasons not to create a Russian Communist party. According to the book 140 talks with Molotov, Vyacheslav Molotov said, “We did not forget to create the Communist party of RSFSR. There was no place for it”3.

How could it happen? We should trace back to Lenin’s policy regarding ethnic difference that was aimed at suppressing “Russian great-power chauvinism.” Lenin’s goal was to redress the ills of Rus-sian imperialism, increase equality among nations, and prevent future dominance of the Russian Soviet Republic in the USSR. The policy implied creating more and more nationalities within the Soviet Union and giving them representative rights. In the 1930s, Stalin turned from this utopian model to the policy of national consolidation. It led to a decrease in the number of officially recog-nized nationalities in the USSR from 200 in 1926 to 60 in 1939. And if in 1933 there were 5,300 national selsoviets (local national minorities’ representative institution) in 1940 the Soviet of Nationalities was the only institution representing national minorities’ interests. Today, historians describe the policy of national consolidation as the “Russification” policy1.

Conducting repressive policy against national minorities in border areas, Stalin needed the strong center he could rely on to build his system. According to all political rhetoric from those times, ‘Russia is the first among equals’ and the Russian Soviet republic was put above other nations in the USSR. Russian language was the only official language obligatory for all Soviet peoples. In 1938, the Uchitel-skaya newspaper wrote that ‘the great Russian language of Lenin and Stalin, Pushkin and Herzen…is close to all Soviet people’2 .

So Stalin’s ‘Friendship of Nations’ policy was aimed at creating a strong Russian center. But here it is also important to stress what ‘Russian’ meant:

While old pre-revolutionary “Russianness” was

suppressed,

G. Myasodeev, Zemstvo is having

lunch

E. Arczhynyan, March ahead,

Komsomol tribe!

a new idea of Russians as the leaders of the Soviet state lay at the core of the Soviet Union's nation-building project.

What was the place of Russian nationality within the Soviet state?

It led to doubled-sided phenomena: some people tried to hide their ethnicity to escape persecution (for example, Germans and Greeks were regarded as enemies of the state because potentially they could have links with western capitalist countries); other people were resisting the Soviet power by fighting for their national identity.

1Martin, Terry. The Affirmative

Action Empire: Nations and

Nationalism in the Soviet Union,

1923-1939. Cornell University

Press,2001

2 Полян Павел, Не по своей воле: история и география принудитель-ных миграций в Советском Союзе - М.: О.Г.И., Мемориал, 2001.

3 Чуев Феликс, Сто сорок бесед с Молотовым: Из дневника Ф. Чуева – М.: ТЕРРА, 1991, с. 268.

1Martin, Terry. The Affirmative

Action Empire: Nations and

Nationalism in the Soviet Union,

1923-1939. Cornell University

Press,2001

2 Учительская газета, 4 августа 1938 г

In this way, the Russian Soviet Republic did not need any local representative institution; it got the right to satisfy Russian national interest at the larger scale, within the entire USSR.

Thus, in the USSR the “Soviet” nationality idea coexisted with the strong idea of ethnicity, so that the state consisted not of citizens (nationals) but of ethnical nations – which is of course very coherent with the aforementioned empire model of nationality. At the same time, the Soviet policy regarding ethnic difference was based on the idea of Russian nation’s central place within the Soviet state while some of ethnic minorities such as Germans, Finns, Greeks and Caucasus peoples were regarded as the ‘enemy of the state’. Several generations of Soviet people were brought up with this idea.

Moscow as the geographical center of ‘Friendship of Nations’ policy

Within the Soviet system, Moscow was the geographical center of the ‘Friendship of Nations' policy. This fact bred the Moscow paradox. On one hand, as ‘the heart of the USSR’ and headquarters of the Communist party, Moscow was the center from which other republics were kept under tight control. On the other hand, in some cases for ethnic minorities’ representatives Moscow was regarded as being more liberal than other cities in the USSR. In Moscow, some ethnic minorities felt that they had more freedom and that they could escape from potential persecution in their native republics.

67

Thus, in contrast to the nation-state model, Stalin’s ethnical policy was an example of the imperial model that implied non-flexible links to ethnicity (or religion as it was in Imperial Russia). According to historian Terry Martin’s book ‘The Affirmative Action Empire’1 , the Soviet model was unique in the sense that it supported ethnic minorities’ interests such as national cultures and traditions even more than Russians’. It contributed to the development of non-political components of ethnic minorities’ national identities. At the same time, national elites were suppressed if their actions were aimed at promoting their national interests more than state interests. So,

A military card; a birth certificate,

source: www.caraimica.org

ethnic minorities were forced to look different but not to think different.

Second, creation of the Soviet “Family of Nations” involved dismantling and restructuring existing families and cultures. This dismantling process involved physical, social and psychological violence. According to the NKVD act enacted in 1937, children of three to 15 years of age whose parents were imprisoned were sent to state-run orphanages. Children who were 15-years-old and above were sent to camps. They usually were given new names.

Third, people were replaced physically. There were several stages of the so-called forced migration that was aimed at national minorities living at the border areas of the USSR such as Baltic people, Western Ukrainians and Byelorussians, Finns, Poles, Caucasus people and Koreans among others. These border peoples were classified as potential “enemies of the state.” Border “cleanup” operations were held in 1931-38, 1940-41, 1941-45 and 1947-52. According to the information that I received from ‘Memorial’, an organization that is dealing with Stalin's terror, in total about 2.8 million people were replaced during these years2. People were expelled from their native lands and sent to very remote, under-populated areas such as Western Siberia, the Far East and the Soviet Asian republics. The national communi-ties were also split into many smaller parts and dispersed over the whole country. Due to the inhu-man deportation conditions a lot of people died or if they stayed alive during the trip people could die because they were not able to adapt to the new way of living. For instance, if according to the All-Union Census in 1939 there were 143,432 Finns in the USSR, by 1959 their population had decreased drastically to 97,717. At the same time, in place of the deported nations the empty regions were inhabited by the Red Army. So-called ‘Red Army kolkhozes’ appeared on the border areas of the USSR.

Did Russians have any privileges in comparison to other Soviet nations? Answering these questions I took into account the well-known fact that until 1990 the Russian Soviet Republic was the only Soviet republic that did not have its own representative institute. It is often used to prove the opinion that Russians were more suppressed than other peoples in the USSR. But there were reasons not to create a Russian Communist party. According to the book 140 talks with Molotov, Vyacheslav Molotov said, “We did not forget to create the Communist party of RSFSR. There was no place for it”3.

How could it happen? We should trace back to Lenin’s policy regarding ethnic difference that was aimed at suppressing “Russian great-power chauvinism.” Lenin’s goal was to redress the ills of Rus-sian imperialism, increase equality among nations, and prevent future dominance of the Russian Soviet Republic in the USSR. The policy implied creating more and more nationalities within the Soviet Union and giving them representative rights. In the 1930s, Stalin turned from this utopian model to the policy of national consolidation. It led to a decrease in the number of officially recog-nized nationalities in the USSR from 200 in 1926 to 60 in 1939. And if in 1933 there were 5,300 national selsoviets (local national minorities’ representative institution) in 1940 the Soviet of Nationalities was the only institution representing national minorities’ interests. Today, historians describe the policy of national consolidation as the “Russification” policy1.

Conducting repressive policy against national minorities in border areas, Stalin needed the strong center he could rely on to build his system. According to all political rhetoric from those times, ‘Russia is the first among equals’ and the Russian Soviet republic was put above other nations in the USSR. Russian language was the only official language obligatory for all Soviet peoples. In 1938, the Uchitel-skaya newspaper wrote that ‘the great Russian language of Lenin and Stalin, Pushkin and Herzen…is close to all Soviet people’2 .

So Stalin’s ‘Friendship of Nations’ policy was aimed at creating a strong Russian center. But here it is also important to stress what ‘Russian’ meant:

While old pre-revolutionary “Russianness” was

suppressed,

G. Myasodeev, Zemstvo is having

lunch

E. Arczhynyan, March ahead,

Komsomol tribe!

a new idea of Russians as the leaders of the Soviet state lay at the core of the Soviet Union's nation-building project.

What was the place of Russian nationality within the Soviet state?

It led to doubled-sided phenomena: some people tried to hide their ethnicity to escape persecution (for example, Germans and Greeks were regarded as enemies of the state because potentially they could have links with western capitalist countries); other people were resisting the Soviet power by fighting for their national identity.

1Martin, Terry. The Affirmative

Action Empire: Nations and

Nationalism in the Soviet Union,

1923-1939. Cornell University

Press,2001

2 Полян Павел, Не по своей воле: история и география принудитель-ных миграций в Советском Союзе - М.: О.Г.И., Мемориал, 2001.

3 Чуев Феликс, Сто сорок бесед с Молотовым: Из дневника Ф. Чуева – М.: ТЕРРА, 1991, с. 268.

1Martin, Terry. The Affirmative

Action Empire: Nations and

Nationalism in the Soviet Union,

1923-1939. Cornell University

Press,2001

2 Учительская газета, 4 августа 1938 г

In this way, the Russian Soviet Republic did not need any local representative institution; it got the right to satisfy Russian national interest at the larger scale, within the entire USSR.

Thus, in the USSR the “Soviet” nationality idea coexisted with the strong idea of ethnicity, so that the state consisted not of citizens (nationals) but of ethnical nations – which is of course very coherent with the aforementioned empire model of nationality. At the same time, the Soviet policy regarding ethnic difference was based on the idea of Russian nation’s central place within the Soviet state while some of ethnic minorities such as Germans, Finns, Greeks and Caucasus peoples were regarded as the ‘enemy of the state’. Several generations of Soviet people were brought up with this idea.

Moscow as the geographical center of ‘Friendship of Nations’ policy

Within the Soviet system, Moscow was the geographical center of the ‘Friendship of Nations' policy. This fact bred the Moscow paradox. On one hand, as ‘the heart of the USSR’ and headquarters of the Communist party, Moscow was the center from which other republics were kept under tight control. On the other hand, in some cases for ethnic minorities’ representatives Moscow was regarded as being more liberal than other cities in the USSR. In Moscow, some ethnic minorities felt that they had more freedom and that they could escape from potential persecution in their native republics.

68

According to Ukrainian poet and public figure Pavlo Movchana, “as a famous proverb says 'In Moscow they cut your nails but in Kiev, they cut the finger.' [In Soviet times] I published all my main articles in Moscow because in Kiev everything was under total control…”1

The Soviet Moscow Paradox

The multinational community The center of the authoritarian state

Ukrainian historian Andrei Portnov gave some other examples of the paradox.2 In his lecture about Soviet Ukrainian historiography, he points out a very interesting fact: in 1957 an academic periodical titled The History of Ukraine was published. In the same year The History of the USSR appeared. It is notable that in contrast to other Soviet republics The History of Russia was never published; “Russian” was always equal to “Soviet”. What is more, as was the case with the Russian Communist Party, which was only created in 1993, there was also no Russian Academy of Science – unlike the Ukrainian Academy of Science or similar institutions in other Soviet republics. The Soviet Academy of Science aimed to represent the interests of Russian academic communities within the state. In this context, Andrei Portnov also speaks about some facts that prove the Soviet Moscow Paradox.

Despite the fact that in the 1960s and 1970s there was tough pressure on dissidents in Moscow and Leningrad, so much so that some of them were forced to leave cities to escape from different kinds of repressions (for example, Soviet writer Sergei Dovlatov left Leningrad for Tallinn, the capital of the Estonian Soviet republic to find more freedom there), there were examples showing that dissidents from other Soviet republics could do things in Moscow that were impossible to do in their native republics. Mykola Kovalsky, a Soviet and Ukrainian historian, could not defend his thesis in either Kiev or Lvov because he was regarded as a ‘bourgeois nationalist’ there. At the same time, he could do it in Moscow.

Dnepropetrovsk, a city in Ukraine, was a closed city because of the fact that there was a university there specializing in educating experts for the space industry. Due to the fact that in the USSR everything that had connections with the defense industry was declared to be closed, scientific work within the university was controlled by Moscow directly. The university even had its own publishing house independent from the Kiev bureaucracy. So, this separation helped some scientists to publish their books there, while Kiev publishing houses, for example, could have easily forbidden publication of these books. For example, for Mykola Kovalsky (who was already mentioned him above) it was only possible to publish his works about Ukrainian history in Dnepropetrovsk due to the city's direct connections with Moscow. In other Ukrainian publishing houses, there was a directive to establish a list of the forbidden authors and words that were regarded as ‘bourgeois nationalist’. According to this list, Mykola Kovalsky could not publish anything in Ukraine. So,

Post-Soviet era

After the collapse of the USSR, the part of the Moscow paradox that held Soviet Moscow together as a multi-ethnic, international center disappeared; Moscow stopped being an authoritarian control center for all Soviet republics and could not control them anymore. At the same time, the second part depicting Moscow as a multinational community stayed in place; the new Moscow became more open and gave more chances for people to come here. It led to the fact that

Today creating ‘we are Muscovites’ by eliminating ethnic difference consolidates people to confront the external threat such as migration – notably including migration from the ethnically different regions of Russia. According to the sociological survey made by the Levada-center in October-November 2011, Muscovites stressed the increasing amount of migrants from Caucasus and Central Asia as the main city problem of their concern.1 Intolerance toward newcomers is supported by officials and the overall attitude toward otherness. The migration policy is aimed at not supporting or at least tolerating migrants but at fighting “illegal migration”, which in most cases includes absolutely legal immigration from ethnically different regions of the same country. For example, in 2010 Putin proposed to introduce criminal liability for absence of registration.2 In 2012, he repeated it in his pre-election statement.3

Due to repressive registration policy it is more complicated for migrants to work and live here legally. The existence of labor and part-time residence quotas in Moscow feeds corruption. The following example illustrates the fact that officials are interested in preserving this policy. According to informa-tion that I obtained in an interview with human rights activist Svetlana Gannushkina, the founder of NGO ‘Grazhdanskoe Sodeistvie’, in 2006 labor quotas were not abolished but extended to 6 million guest workers, and the number of illegal workers decreased tenfold due to the fact that the number of labor migrants was less than 2 million. But in 2007, the rules were tightened, spurring yet another increase in the levels of the illegal migration.

Speaking about the popular attitude toward newcomers, TV shows and movies often depict them in two ways: they are making jokes about them (such as the comedy TV show ‘Nasha Russia’) or show migrants in a negative way. This shot from Chlebnikov’s movie ‘Help gone made’ about life in a Mos-cow microrayon shows today’s reality very well.

Taking into account the intolerant attitude of Muscovites towards newcomers, the question is how to make Moscow a more open and friendly city. Here I am coming to the second part of my research where I focused on a very special area in the city, the campus of Russian Friendship of Nations Univer-sity.

the paradox transformed into a new anxiety: now the question was: “Who is a real

Muscovite”.

1 Шкода Оксана, «Сегодня студенты не учатся, а проходят курс лекций», «Между строк: всеукраинский общественно-подитический еженедельник» (http://mezdustrok.com.ua/content/

segodnya-studenty-ne-uchatsya-

prohodyat-kurs-lekciy)

2 Портнов Андрей, О советской историографии по-украински, видео. Сайт Ab Imperio, 28.10.2011

(http://net.abimperio.net/node/2215)

ethnic minorities’ representatives who were regarded to be dissidents in their native

republics because of Moscow repressive policy came to Moscow to escape from this policy.

1 «Москвичи хотят избирать мэра самостоятельно - опрос жителей столицы о проблемах города, борьбе с пробками и некоторых инициативах С. Собянина». Пресс-выпуск «Левада-Центра» 23.11.2011 (http://www.levada.ru/23-11-2011/

moskvichi-khotyat-izbirat-mera-

samostoyatelno-opros-zhitelei-

stolitsy-o-problemakh-goroda)

2 Анна Софронова, Путин предло-жил ввести уголовную ответствен-ность за отсутствие регистрации, RB.ru, 28.12.2010 (http://www.

rb.ru/article/putin-predlojil-vvesti-

ugolovnuyu-otvetstvennost-za-

otsutstvie-registratsii/6616967.html)

3 «Путин: жесткий ответ "вызы-вающему поведению" мигрантов», Русская служба BBC, 23.01.2012 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/

russia/2012/01/120122_putin_

migration_issues_article.shtml)

‘Nasha Russia’, a comic show on TNT

channel

‘‘Help gone mad’ by Boris Hlebnikov,

2009

69

According to Ukrainian poet and public figure Pavlo Movchana, “as a famous proverb says 'In Moscow they cut your nails but in Kiev, they cut the finger.' [In Soviet times] I published all my main articles in Moscow because in Kiev everything was under total control…”1

The Soviet Moscow Paradox

The multinational community The center of the authoritarian state

Ukrainian historian Andrei Portnov gave some other examples of the paradox.2 In his lecture about Soviet Ukrainian historiography, he points out a very interesting fact: in 1957 an academic periodical titled The History of Ukraine was published. In the same year The History of the USSR appeared. It is notable that in contrast to other Soviet republics The History of Russia was never published; “Russian” was always equal to “Soviet”. What is more, as was the case with the Russian Communist Party, which was only created in 1993, there was also no Russian Academy of Science – unlike the Ukrainian Academy of Science or similar institutions in other Soviet republics. The Soviet Academy of Science aimed to represent the interests of Russian academic communities within the state. In this context, Andrei Portnov also speaks about some facts that prove the Soviet Moscow Paradox.

Despite the fact that in the 1960s and 1970s there was tough pressure on dissidents in Moscow and Leningrad, so much so that some of them were forced to leave cities to escape from different kinds of repressions (for example, Soviet writer Sergei Dovlatov left Leningrad for Tallinn, the capital of the Estonian Soviet republic to find more freedom there), there were examples showing that dissidents from other Soviet republics could do things in Moscow that were impossible to do in their native republics. Mykola Kovalsky, a Soviet and Ukrainian historian, could not defend his thesis in either Kiev or Lvov because he was regarded as a ‘bourgeois nationalist’ there. At the same time, he could do it in Moscow.

Dnepropetrovsk, a city in Ukraine, was a closed city because of the fact that there was a university there specializing in educating experts for the space industry. Due to the fact that in the USSR everything that had connections with the defense industry was declared to be closed, scientific work within the university was controlled by Moscow directly. The university even had its own publishing house independent from the Kiev bureaucracy. So, this separation helped some scientists to publish their books there, while Kiev publishing houses, for example, could have easily forbidden publication of these books. For example, for Mykola Kovalsky (who was already mentioned him above) it was only possible to publish his works about Ukrainian history in Dnepropetrovsk due to the city's direct connections with Moscow. In other Ukrainian publishing houses, there was a directive to establish a list of the forbidden authors and words that were regarded as ‘bourgeois nationalist’. According to this list, Mykola Kovalsky could not publish anything in Ukraine. So,

Post-Soviet era

After the collapse of the USSR, the part of the Moscow paradox that held Soviet Moscow together as a multi-ethnic, international center disappeared; Moscow stopped being an authoritarian control center for all Soviet republics and could not control them anymore. At the same time, the second part depicting Moscow as a multinational community stayed in place; the new Moscow became more open and gave more chances for people to come here. It led to the fact that

Today creating ‘we are Muscovites’ by eliminating ethnic difference consolidates people to confront the external threat such as migration – notably including migration from the ethnically different regions of Russia. According to the sociological survey made by the Levada-center in October-November 2011, Muscovites stressed the increasing amount of migrants from Caucasus and Central Asia as the main city problem of their concern.1 Intolerance toward newcomers is supported by officials and the overall attitude toward otherness. The migration policy is aimed at not supporting or at least tolerating migrants but at fighting “illegal migration”, which in most cases includes absolutely legal immigration from ethnically different regions of the same country. For example, in 2010 Putin proposed to introduce criminal liability for absence of registration.2 In 2012, he repeated it in his pre-election statement.3

Due to repressive registration policy it is more complicated for migrants to work and live here legally. The existence of labor and part-time residence quotas in Moscow feeds corruption. The following example illustrates the fact that officials are interested in preserving this policy. According to informa-tion that I obtained in an interview with human rights activist Svetlana Gannushkina, the founder of NGO ‘Grazhdanskoe Sodeistvie’, in 2006 labor quotas were not abolished but extended to 6 million guest workers, and the number of illegal workers decreased tenfold due to the fact that the number of labor migrants was less than 2 million. But in 2007, the rules were tightened, spurring yet another increase in the levels of the illegal migration.

Speaking about the popular attitude toward newcomers, TV shows and movies often depict them in two ways: they are making jokes about them (such as the comedy TV show ‘Nasha Russia’) or show migrants in a negative way. This shot from Chlebnikov’s movie ‘Help gone made’ about life in a Mos-cow microrayon shows today’s reality very well.

Taking into account the intolerant attitude of Muscovites towards newcomers, the question is how to make Moscow a more open and friendly city. Here I am coming to the second part of my research where I focused on a very special area in the city, the campus of Russian Friendship of Nations Univer-sity.

the paradox transformed into a new anxiety: now the question was: “Who is a real

Muscovite”.

1 Шкода Оксана, «Сегодня студенты не учатся, а проходят курс лекций», «Между строк: всеукраинский общественно-подитический еженедельник» (http://mezdustrok.com.ua/content/

segodnya-studenty-ne-uchatsya-

prohodyat-kurs-lekciy)

2 Портнов Андрей, О советской историографии по-украински, видео. Сайт Ab Imperio, 28.10.2011

(http://net.abimperio.net/node/2215)

ethnic minorities’ representatives who were regarded to be dissidents in their native

republics because of Moscow repressive policy came to Moscow to escape from this policy.

1 «Москвичи хотят избирать мэра самостоятельно - опрос жителей столицы о проблемах города, борьбе с пробками и некоторых инициативах С. Собянина». Пресс-выпуск «Левада-Центра» 23.11.2011 (http://www.levada.ru/23-11-2011/

moskvichi-khotyat-izbirat-mera-

samostoyatelno-opros-zhitelei-

stolitsy-o-problemakh-goroda)

2 Анна Софронова, Путин предло-жил ввести уголовную ответствен-ность за отсутствие регистрации, RB.ru, 28.12.2010 (http://www.

rb.ru/article/putin-predlojil-vvesti-

ugolovnuyu-otvetstvennost-za-

otsutstvie-registratsii/6616967.html)

3 «Путин: жесткий ответ "вызы-вающему поведению" мигрантов», Русская служба BBC, 23.01.2012 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/

russia/2012/01/120122_putin_

migration_issues_article.shtml)

‘Nasha Russia’, a comic show on TNT

channel

‘‘Help gone mad’ by Boris Hlebnikov,

2009

70

Part IIDiversity on its own: the university campus as a model of a modern cosmopolitan canopy

I chose this area to research the effect of the “Friendship of Nations” policy within the city. The campus was a physical topos, a real-life implementation of this policy. In Soviet times, it was just space for stu-dents from Third World countries who were invited to come to Moscow to study here for free. During the Cold War, the Soviet government was conducting policy aimed at educating the elite from Africa, Latin America and Asia to grow its own cadres loyal to the USSR. Students stayed in Moscow only for the time of their study and then they left. The campus was a place for them just to spend five to six years in Moscow. But now the situation has changed. The campus has turned into a real neighborhood where people are living their normal lives.

Researching the area, I made the hypothesis that the remains of 'Friendship of Nations' policy can be used to create a cosmopolitan canopy. I posed the following questions: What’s left of the 'Friendship of Nations' policy here? How is this principle still working within the area (if it is still at work)? What new characteristics of the cosmopolitan canopy has the area acquired since the collapse of the USSR?

Before going further I want to explain what a cosmopolitan canopy is. According to social scientist Elijah Anderson’s essay The Cosmopolitan Canopy, “urban public spaces of big cities have become more riven by issues of race, poverty and crime. In navigating such spaces, people often feign ignorance of the diverse mix of strangers they encounter. Yet there remain numerous and densely populated spaces within the city that provides an opportunity for people of different background to come together and be exposed to one another. People come to this neutral and cosmopolitan setting expecting diverse people to get along. And all strangers get an opportunity to express their own identities with respect to others present”. 1

So, if the campus has turned into a neighborhood with shops, cafes and restaurants where technically Russians are able to come, my intention was to look at the interaction of two concepts within this area – 'Friendship of Nations' traditions and some characteristics of the cosmopolitan canopy.

My methodology was observation and interviews with the residents of the area. I was observing the eve-ryday activities within the campus to answer questions about who is a resident of this area, why people are coming here and what traditions from the Soviet past are still kept by the residents.

What defined my choice of activities? Besides the methodology proposed by Elijah Anderson in his essay, I also decided to analyze interviews that I made with the residents of the area and use the materi-als from Bolshoi Gorod magazine (the special edition dedicated to diasporas in Moscow) to understand the activities through which people are brought together, that lead to communication and collaboration among people of different social and ethnic backgrounds. So, I was looking at the activities that can cre-ate conditions for a cosmopolitan canopy to be established.1

The campus

My acquaintance with the area started from the special event that is a continuity of the Friendship of Nations traditions. I came to the festival where students from different diaspora communities were representing their national cultures and traditions by selling national souvenirs, wearing traditional clothes, dancing and playing folk music. This tradition started in 1987 and since then has become an annual event. Each year in the beginning of May the university holds this event.

The festival is usually open to outsiders and attracts a lot of people not from the university. This year the festival was dedicated to May 9. Victory Day celebrations contained the official part of the festival: students were giving flowers to veterans, singing war-time songs and dancing war-time dances. That is why most of outsiders were veterans and journalists. While observing the area, I witnessed how journalists were taking the interviews. Coming from the idea that their main goal was to show the atmosphere of 'Friendship of Nations', they were making reportages depicting foreign students in national clothes saying that they “love Moscow very much”

At the same time, students and their guests were enjoying themselves without paying any attention to what was going on at the main scene. The atmosphere was very warm and friendly and it was no problem to make new friends. I met people from Syria, Colombia, Bangladesh, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, other Russian cities and Moscow. Sunnat, a student from Uzbekistan, told me that he usually comes here to take pictures of the festival. He also told me that almost all foreign students belong to their diaspora communities. For them this is a good tool of integration into the city life:

I don’t belong to my Uzbek diaspora. I think it is amorphous. But, for example, for students from the Caucasus it is almost obligatory to be together with their diaspora. There are many different Caucasus communities within the university. The Kazakstani diaspora is also very big. But they are not present here at the festival. Here there are only more ‘exotic’ diasporas from African, Latin American and Asian countries.

1 Anderson E., The Cosmopolitan

canopy.- The ANNALS of the

American Academy of Political and

Social Science September 2004 595.,

p.15.

1 «Диаспоры Москвы», «Большой город», 16.05.2012 (http://www.

bg.ru/diaspora/)

Photos of guests and participants

that were taken during the festival

In this way, the festival keeps the tradition but does not reflect the true image of the university and the area.

Besides dancing and playing folk music, the main activity during the festival bringing people together was trading. Trading as an activity is widely present within this area.

After the collapse of the USSR the university administration has started to

rent out the spaces inside the campus for shops, cafes and etc. to private people.

71

Part IIDiversity on its own: the university campus as a model of a modern cosmopolitan canopy

I chose this area to research the effect of the “Friendship of Nations” policy within the city. The campus was a physical topos, a real-life implementation of this policy. In Soviet times, it was just space for stu-dents from Third World countries who were invited to come to Moscow to study here for free. During the Cold War, the Soviet government was conducting policy aimed at educating the elite from Africa, Latin America and Asia to grow its own cadres loyal to the USSR. Students stayed in Moscow only for the time of their study and then they left. The campus was a place for them just to spend five to six years in Moscow. But now the situation has changed. The campus has turned into a real neighborhood where people are living their normal lives.

Researching the area, I made the hypothesis that the remains of 'Friendship of Nations' policy can be used to create a cosmopolitan canopy. I posed the following questions: What’s left of the 'Friendship of Nations' policy here? How is this principle still working within the area (if it is still at work)? What new characteristics of the cosmopolitan canopy has the area acquired since the collapse of the USSR?

Before going further I want to explain what a cosmopolitan canopy is. According to social scientist Elijah Anderson’s essay The Cosmopolitan Canopy, “urban public spaces of big cities have become more riven by issues of race, poverty and crime. In navigating such spaces, people often feign ignorance of the diverse mix of strangers they encounter. Yet there remain numerous and densely populated spaces within the city that provides an opportunity for people of different background to come together and be exposed to one another. People come to this neutral and cosmopolitan setting expecting diverse people to get along. And all strangers get an opportunity to express their own identities with respect to others present”. 1

So, if the campus has turned into a neighborhood with shops, cafes and restaurants where technically Russians are able to come, my intention was to look at the interaction of two concepts within this area – 'Friendship of Nations' traditions and some characteristics of the cosmopolitan canopy.

My methodology was observation and interviews with the residents of the area. I was observing the eve-ryday activities within the campus to answer questions about who is a resident of this area, why people are coming here and what traditions from the Soviet past are still kept by the residents.

What defined my choice of activities? Besides the methodology proposed by Elijah Anderson in his essay, I also decided to analyze interviews that I made with the residents of the area and use the materi-als from Bolshoi Gorod magazine (the special edition dedicated to diasporas in Moscow) to understand the activities through which people are brought together, that lead to communication and collaboration among people of different social and ethnic backgrounds. So, I was looking at the activities that can cre-ate conditions for a cosmopolitan canopy to be established.1

The campus

My acquaintance with the area started from the special event that is a continuity of the Friendship of Nations traditions. I came to the festival where students from different diaspora communities were representing their national cultures and traditions by selling national souvenirs, wearing traditional clothes, dancing and playing folk music. This tradition started in 1987 and since then has become an annual event. Each year in the beginning of May the university holds this event.

The festival is usually open to outsiders and attracts a lot of people not from the university. This year the festival was dedicated to May 9. Victory Day celebrations contained the official part of the festival: students were giving flowers to veterans, singing war-time songs and dancing war-time dances. That is why most of outsiders were veterans and journalists. While observing the area, I witnessed how journalists were taking the interviews. Coming from the idea that their main goal was to show the atmosphere of 'Friendship of Nations', they were making reportages depicting foreign students in national clothes saying that they “love Moscow very much”

At the same time, students and their guests were enjoying themselves without paying any attention to what was going on at the main scene. The atmosphere was very warm and friendly and it was no problem to make new friends. I met people from Syria, Colombia, Bangladesh, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, other Russian cities and Moscow. Sunnat, a student from Uzbekistan, told me that he usually comes here to take pictures of the festival. He also told me that almost all foreign students belong to their diaspora communities. For them this is a good tool of integration into the city life:

I don’t belong to my Uzbek diaspora. I think it is amorphous. But, for example, for students from the Caucasus it is almost obligatory to be together with their diaspora. There are many different Caucasus communities within the university. The Kazakstani diaspora is also very big. But they are not present here at the festival. Here there are only more ‘exotic’ diasporas from African, Latin American and Asian countries.

1 Anderson E., The Cosmopolitan

canopy.- The ANNALS of the

American Academy of Political and

Social Science September 2004 595.,

p.15.

1 «Диаспоры Москвы», «Большой город», 16.05.2012 (http://www.

bg.ru/diaspora/)

Photos of guests and participants

that were taken during the festival

In this way, the festival keeps the tradition but does not reflect the true image of the university and the area.

Besides dancing and playing folk music, the main activity during the festival bringing people together was trading. Trading as an activity is widely present within this area.

After the collapse of the USSR the university administration has started to

rent out the spaces inside the campus for shops, cafes and etc. to private people.

72

These people are usually graduates from the university who stayed in Moscow and decided to launch their own business.

There is a famous shop of Indian spices inside the campus. I came here at two o'clock in the afternoon, and it was full of people, not students, who were buying Indian food and cosmetics. A shop assistant named Begainym told me that the shop was opened 15 years ago. The owner of the shop is an alumnus from India. Begainym came from Kyrgyzstan, and now she is working in the shop but next year she is planning to enter the university. I was also told that besides Indian food within the campus there is a shop of souvenirs and clothes from Peru in the basement of one of the buildings and a kiosk with traditional Syrian deserts and spices.

The campus is also famous by its variety of cafes and restaurants with different national cuisines from Lebanon, India, China etc. It is a good example of the cosmopolitan canopy. There are always people here regardless of the time. They are not only students; there are a lot of Muscovites who are coming because of the prices and the tasty food. All these cafes within the campus differ from other Moscow cafes specializing in Asian or Arabic food, not only because of the cheap prices that allow a greater variety of people to come but also by the fact that they do not translate their food tradition specially for visitors. It means that they are cooking their national cuisines according to their recipes not adapting them to the Russian food tradition. But what is most famous here is a waterpipe that sells for only for 300 rubles (in comparison with other prices in Moscow of around 800 rubles, it is too cheap) but is of high quality. It attracts a lot of people to campus cafes. So, the cosmopolitan canopy works: people are coming to these cafes expecting diverse people to get along. While smoking the water pipe, for example, people are getting a chance to slowdown themselves, observing, and, in effect, doing their own folk ethnography with respect to others present. It can thus be a profoundly humanizing experience because people are inclined to express common civility in these places.

The ensemble was founded 40 years ago and has a long history. They were performing at all important stages of the USSR, including the State Kremlin Palace. I spoke with the head of the ensemble, Anasta-sia, who is also a PG student at the university:

We have 40 people in our ensemble. Maybe it is symbolic because we just celebrated the 40th anniversary. We don’t have a lot of foreigners, about 10 people, mostly men. Foreign girls don’t come to us to dance but I don’t know why. I don’t know how to explain this fact. But I don’t think that it is because of the language. I remember one story when one foreign student came to us to dance but he didn’t know Russian at all because he just came to Moscow. And once during the rehearsal he exclaimed: - Hurrah! I can understand you! I understand everything! So, the dance even helps in learning the language.

At the rehearsal I also met Katya who came from a small town in Moscow region and now lives on the campus and studies at the university. She brought me to her room in the student building to see the interior. She also told me about the housing policy:

Before entering the university some girls frightened me that it is not safe to live here in the campus with all these foreigners, especially they warned me about African guys as if they were raping Russian girls. I have been living here for six months and can say that all this gossip is nonsense. Even if someone wants to do any crime within the campus area it’s impossible. Look around. Here there are video cameras everywhere, in streets and inside the buildings. Nothing can happen. And people are friendly here. Actually, we are forbidden to express any intolerance. You will be expelled from the university at once. But I don’t know any such examples. I think if you entered this university you should understand that you are going to study with people of different nationalities. In the room I’m living together with Russian girls but it is more an exception from the rule. In most cases students are mixed according to their nationalities as it was in the USSR. There should be someone who knows Russian to help foreigners learn the language I guess. But if you don’t like your roommates it’s possible to change rooms. But it’s better if you are able to pay money. I’ll explain. There are several types of student buildings depending on conditions. We should pay for staying here. For so-called barracks people are paying 700 rubles per year. I’m living in better conditions so I’m paying 4,000 rubles per month. The most expensive price is 5,000 rubles. So, if you are able to pay money you can move easily.But not all rooms are for students. The administration rented out some rooms to families. It’s cheaper for them than to rent a flat in any other Moscow district. Also it is comfortable to live here for families. It is safe and here we have everything so that you have no need to leave the campus unless you want to.

Here I also met people who came from the nearest microrayon that is connected with the campus by a park with a lake. This park is widely used by students, other residents of the campus and also by people from this microrayon. When one student from Guinea-Bissau was guiding me around the area we walked across the park. Students, young mums with their babies, old women and people with their dogs were walking around or sitting on benches. When I came there on Sunday everything was occupied by people who were doing barbeque, both students and the microrayon’s residents. The lake is also widely used by everyone just to sit to read a book or to fish. So, this is also a good example of the cosmopolitan canopy, the notion of which I gave above.

I met Nastya and Anya in the Beirut café. They are also students but from Moscow State Institute of International Affairs. They like coming here during their breaks between lectures to have lunch because it is of course cheap and tasty. Anya also spoke about the special atmosphere here:

We usually come to these cafes without men. But no one here is trying to pick us up, nobody’s rude with us. The atmosphere is very friendly even despite the fact that the male population is dominating here. I like this area, it is funny here maybe because of the diversity of people.

Next to Beirut café there is a so-called ‘Interclub’, the Soviet heritage within the campus. It is like Dom Kultury (House of Culture during Soviet times) where different cultural events are held such as the concert of Lebanese music or the week of Tanzanian culture, etc. I came here to visit the rehearsal of the ensemble called ‘The Rhythms of Friendship’. The entrance is usually open to everyone; there were no problem to come in. On the ground floor, there were announcements about different activities that are taking place in the Interclub. I paid attention to the fact that not only students but also everyone who is interested in learning global folk dances is invited to dance here.

Photos that were taken in the

Indian shop and different cafes in

the campus

The Interclub (the first photo);

The ensemble in 1972 (the second

photo); The ensemble in 2012 (the

third photo)

Katya in her room (the first photo);

The room for 700 rub per year (the

second photo); The campus at 5

p.m. on a week day (the third photo)

73

These people are usually graduates from the university who stayed in Moscow and decided to launch their own business.

There is a famous shop of Indian spices inside the campus. I came here at two o'clock in the afternoon, and it was full of people, not students, who were buying Indian food and cosmetics. A shop assistant named Begainym told me that the shop was opened 15 years ago. The owner of the shop is an alumnus from India. Begainym came from Kyrgyzstan, and now she is working in the shop but next year she is planning to enter the university. I was also told that besides Indian food within the campus there is a shop of souvenirs and clothes from Peru in the basement of one of the buildings and a kiosk with traditional Syrian deserts and spices.

The campus is also famous by its variety of cafes and restaurants with different national cuisines from Lebanon, India, China etc. It is a good example of the cosmopolitan canopy. There are always people here regardless of the time. They are not only students; there are a lot of Muscovites who are coming because of the prices and the tasty food. All these cafes within the campus differ from other Moscow cafes specializing in Asian or Arabic food, not only because of the cheap prices that allow a greater variety of people to come but also by the fact that they do not translate their food tradition specially for visitors. It means that they are cooking their national cuisines according to their recipes not adapting them to the Russian food tradition. But what is most famous here is a waterpipe that sells for only for 300 rubles (in comparison with other prices in Moscow of around 800 rubles, it is too cheap) but is of high quality. It attracts a lot of people to campus cafes. So, the cosmopolitan canopy works: people are coming to these cafes expecting diverse people to get along. While smoking the water pipe, for example, people are getting a chance to slowdown themselves, observing, and, in effect, doing their own folk ethnography with respect to others present. It can thus be a profoundly humanizing experience because people are inclined to express common civility in these places.

The ensemble was founded 40 years ago and has a long history. They were performing at all important stages of the USSR, including the State Kremlin Palace. I spoke with the head of the ensemble, Anasta-sia, who is also a PG student at the university:

We have 40 people in our ensemble. Maybe it is symbolic because we just celebrated the 40th anniversary. We don’t have a lot of foreigners, about 10 people, mostly men. Foreign girls don’t come to us to dance but I don’t know why. I don’t know how to explain this fact. But I don’t think that it is because of the language. I remember one story when one foreign student came to us to dance but he didn’t know Russian at all because he just came to Moscow. And once during the rehearsal he exclaimed: - Hurrah! I can understand you! I understand everything! So, the dance even helps in learning the language.

At the rehearsal I also met Katya who came from a small town in Moscow region and now lives on the campus and studies at the university. She brought me to her room in the student building to see the interior. She also told me about the housing policy:

Before entering the university some girls frightened me that it is not safe to live here in the campus with all these foreigners, especially they warned me about African guys as if they were raping Russian girls. I have been living here for six months and can say that all this gossip is nonsense. Even if someone wants to do any crime within the campus area it’s impossible. Look around. Here there are video cameras everywhere, in streets and inside the buildings. Nothing can happen. And people are friendly here. Actually, we are forbidden to express any intolerance. You will be expelled from the university at once. But I don’t know any such examples. I think if you entered this university you should understand that you are going to study with people of different nationalities. In the room I’m living together with Russian girls but it is more an exception from the rule. In most cases students are mixed according to their nationalities as it was in the USSR. There should be someone who knows Russian to help foreigners learn the language I guess. But if you don’t like your roommates it’s possible to change rooms. But it’s better if you are able to pay money. I’ll explain. There are several types of student buildings depending on conditions. We should pay for staying here. For so-called barracks people are paying 700 rubles per year. I’m living in better conditions so I’m paying 4,000 rubles per month. The most expensive price is 5,000 rubles. So, if you are able to pay money you can move easily.But not all rooms are for students. The administration rented out some rooms to families. It’s cheaper for them than to rent a flat in any other Moscow district. Also it is comfortable to live here for families. It is safe and here we have everything so that you have no need to leave the campus unless you want to.

Here I also met people who came from the nearest microrayon that is connected with the campus by a park with a lake. This park is widely used by students, other residents of the campus and also by people from this microrayon. When one student from Guinea-Bissau was guiding me around the area we walked across the park. Students, young mums with their babies, old women and people with their dogs were walking around or sitting on benches. When I came there on Sunday everything was occupied by people who were doing barbeque, both students and the microrayon’s residents. The lake is also widely used by everyone just to sit to read a book or to fish. So, this is also a good example of the cosmopolitan canopy, the notion of which I gave above.

I met Nastya and Anya in the Beirut café. They are also students but from Moscow State Institute of International Affairs. They like coming here during their breaks between lectures to have lunch because it is of course cheap and tasty. Anya also spoke about the special atmosphere here:

We usually come to these cafes without men. But no one here is trying to pick us up, nobody’s rude with us. The atmosphere is very friendly even despite the fact that the male population is dominating here. I like this area, it is funny here maybe because of the diversity of people.

Next to Beirut café there is a so-called ‘Interclub’, the Soviet heritage within the campus. It is like Dom Kultury (House of Culture during Soviet times) where different cultural events are held such as the concert of Lebanese music or the week of Tanzanian culture, etc. I came here to visit the rehearsal of the ensemble called ‘The Rhythms of Friendship’. The entrance is usually open to everyone; there were no problem to come in. On the ground floor, there were announcements about different activities that are taking place in the Interclub. I paid attention to the fact that not only students but also everyone who is interested in learning global folk dances is invited to dance here.

Photos that were taken in the

Indian shop and different cafes in

the campus

The Interclub (the first photo);

The ensemble in 1972 (the second

photo); The ensemble in 2012 (the

third photo)

Katya in her room (the first photo);

The room for 700 rub per year (the

second photo); The campus at 5

p.m. on a week day (the third photo)

Gaos, a student from Guinea-Bissau, spoke about the park as his favorite place in Moscow:

You know, Moscow is not a comfortable city, especially for a black guy. But this is my district. I feel safe here. Of course, Moscow is very big and a beautiful city but people still don’t accept newcomers. You don’t allow us to express ourselves. I don’t like going by metro. Too many people. I prefer to stay here to watch TV or walk in the park. I’m walking around the park with my friends or with you now. It’s beautiful and calm here.

When I crossed the park I discovered the school and several sport grounds that are also widely used both by students and the microrayon’s residents. Sport is another activity that brings people together here. Sunnat, a student from Uzbekistan, told me:

We are doing a lot of sports here: football, volleyball, baseball, cricket, basketball, skiing and etc. Indi-ans, for example, cannot live without the cricket, they playing it all the time. Arabs like trying every new sport. They can play everything. Now I’m going to meet my friends to play volleyball. I think we will call Latin Americans to join us.

Thus, through interviews and observations I gave several examples of activities such as trading, doing sport, holding holidays, dancing, eating in cafes and walking around the park within the area. All these examples reveal both the continuity of the 'Friendship of Nations' policy and characteristics of the cosmopolitan canopy. Here the Soviet rhetoric ‘Friendship of Nations’ is still used to provide security and keep the peace within the area. At the same time, the campus is turning into a neighborhood that is open to Muscovites and can be used by them as a place to have lunch or go for a walk.

Being guests in Moscow foreign students cre-ate a tolerant environment within the campus.When Muscovites are coming here they are already aware of the cultural and ethnic diversity of the area; if they decide to choose it as a place to spend their free time in most cases they are not going to express intolerance. It can lead to a local cosmopolitanism that implies that you get an opportunity to learn about the outer world without crossing the border but with the help of such densely populated spaces with the high level of cultural and ethnical diversity. But there should be also a component that would give people an opportunity to show their folk ethnography and expose this side to one to another. At the same time, this component should create a relaxing atmosphere to distract excessive attention from the diversity if it is disturbing for someone. In other words, it should soften the diversity within the space and give an opportunity to people of different background and ethnicity to come together.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the ‘Friendship of Nations’ principle was introduced in an attempt to combine nationalists’ interests with socialists’ political interests in the USSR. It consisted of two contradictory policies. The first policy was aimed to conduct affirmative actions towards ethnic difference within the state by promoting ethnic minorities’ non-political components such as cultures and traditions. The second policy was repressive, aimed at suppressing national elites in Soviet republics if their activities contradicted the mainstream. When these policies faced each other the latter prevailed over the former.

At the same time, if looking at the first policy aimed to support ethnic minorities’ interests, it can remind one of some principles of multiculturalism. The state’s affirmative actions toward ethnic minorities were aimed at promoting their cultures and traditions, and it also gave them an opportunity, though limited, to represent their national interests within the state.

Coming to the example of the campus that was a physical implementation of the ‘Friendship of Nations’ principle within the city, its affirmative action policy has been manifested through those traditions that were preserved within the campus area. Through holding holidays, festivals, fairs, trading and taking part in sport competitions etc. people were brought together. Moreover, the ideology of ‘Friendship of Nations’ officially prevented from expressing intolerance so that it could not grow to large scale. A similar situation has been preserved until now. At the same time, due to the fact that the area became open for strangers, new characteristics of the cosmopolitan canopy were added to this existing background. So, this experience can be very interesting because of its paradox. On the one hand, it is Soviet heritage that we have within the city; it is the continuity of ‘Friendship of Nation’ policy. Some of its mechanisms are providing a top-down approach for maintaining a secure environment and preventing intolerance. On the other hand, now this is a neighborhood with a lot of new activities within one space. Taking into account that in the nearest future a lot of newcomers will arrive in Moscow and it could soon turn into a multicultural megacity like other world capitals,

this experience can be used to understand how to create in Moscow

less hostile environment towards ethnic difference and build functioning model

of a multicultural community.

Sokolovski S., Structures of Russian political discourse on nationality problems.-M.:1997.

Martin, Terry. The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939. Cornell University Press,2001.

Полян Павел, Не по своей воле: история и география принудительной миграции в Советском Союзе – М.: О.Г.И, Мемориал, 2001.

Чуев Феликс, Сто сорок бесед с Молотовым: Из дневника Ф. Чуева – М.: ТЕРРА, 1991, с 268.

Anderson E., The Cosmopolitan canopy.- The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science September 2004 595., p.15.

Photos that were taken while

walking around the park

Photos that were taken in the

sportgrounds

Bibliography:

74

Conclusion

In conclusion, the ‘Friendship of Nations’ principle was introduced in an attempt to combine nationalists’ interests with socialists’ political interests in the USSR. It consisted of two contradictory policies. The first policy was aimed to conduct affirmative actions towards ethnic difference within the state by promoting ethnic minorities’ non-political components such as cultures and traditions. The second policy was repressive, aimed at suppressing national elites in Soviet republics if their activities contradicted the mainstream. When these policies faced each other the latter prevailed over the former.

At the same time, if looking at the first policy aimed to support ethnic minorities’ interests, it can remind one of some principles of multiculturalism. The state’s affirmative actions toward ethnic minorities were aimed at promoting their cultures and traditions, and it also gave them an opportunity, though limited, to represent their national interests within the state.

Coming to the example of the campus that was a physical implementation of the ‘Friendship of Nations’ principle within the city, its affirmative action policy has been manifested through those traditions that were preserved within the campus area. Through holding holidays, festivals, fairs, trading and taking part in sport competitions etc. people were brought together. Moreover, the ideology of ‘Friendship of Nations’ officially prevented from expressing intolerance so that it could not grow to large scale. A similar situation has been preserved until now. At the same time, due to the fact that the area became open for strangers, new characteristics of the cosmopolitan canopy were added to this existing background. So, this experience can be very interesting because of its paradox. On the one hand, it is Soviet heritage that we have within the city; it is the continuity of ‘Friendship of Nation’ policy. Some of its mechanisms are providing a top-down approach for maintaining a secure environment and preventing intolerance. On the other hand, now this is a neighborhood with a lot of new activities within one space. Taking into account that in the nearest future a lot of newcomers will arrive in Moscow and it could soon turn into a multicultural megacity like other world capitals,

this experience can be used to understand how to create in Moscow

less hostile environment towards ethnic difference and build functioning model

of a multicultural community.

S. Sokolovski. Structures of Russian political discourse on nationality problems.-M.:1997.

M. Terry. The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939. Cornell University Press,2001.

П. Полян. Не по своей воле: история и география принудительной миграции в Советском Союзе – М.: О.Г.И, Мемориал, 2001.

Ф.Чуев.Сто сорок бесед с Молотовым: Из дневника Ф. Чуева – М.: ТЕРРА, 1991, с 268.

E. Anderson. The Cosmopolitan canopy.- The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science September 2004 595., p.15.

Bibliography:

75

Underground Museum Ekaterina Varionchik

The metro is not just a part of the city's infrastructure, but it is also a public space, a potential home for different types of content. It is a system that can be changed to acquire added value in order to become a living museum. An urban museum is a museum that presents the daily life of the city in a cultural sense.

First, I would like to analyze the primary reasons for the metro's construction. Actually, there were two of them – transportation and ideology. The population of Moscow was intensively increasing at the time. Four million people were living in Moscow by 1930, and the popula-tion kept growing due to an intensive urbanization process. As a result, the existing trans-portation system needed radical transformation. In European cities such as Berlin, London and Paris, subway systems appeared earlier. In Paris, the subway system was created in 1900, when its population numbered 2.7 million people.2 Berlin's transportation system was formed in 1902, when there were 2.5 million people living in the city,3 while London's system was created in1863, when the city's population numbered 2.8 million.4 That means that there was a dramatic demand for a transportation system in Moscow in the late 1920s.

The second reason for the metro's creation was ideological. The basic idea was to demon-strate the advantages of the Soviet project to the rest of the world through the creation of the best and most beautiful metro in the world in the capital of USSR. It also aimed to indoctri-nate Soviet people with visual propaganda. Metro became not just transportation infrastruc-ture but also an “underground palace” for the working class5.

The whole history of metro construction is connected to foreign experience.6 Examples in the three main European capitals--London, Paris and Berlin--were taken into consideration while developing the Moscow metro. Russian specialists went to Europe to study technolo-gies, and European and American specialists were invited to work on the Moscow project.

Moscow’s expansion, transportation problems and traffic jams are probably the most disput-able issues in Moscow and even the Moscow region. Metro is the main transportation system in Moscow; it provides 56% of the entire public transportation capacity. The Moscow metro is also often considered one of the most beautiful and fast1 transportation systems in the world. Nevertheless, the transportation function was not the only priority during the Moscow metro construction; it also had great ideological significance.

The question is: what are the priorities of the metro today?

The metro network was not only designed to solve transportation issues but also to develop the public space as a space of self representation of the country. The metro has become a museum, an underground museum that presents the daily life of the city in a cultural sense.

How is the metro perceived today? What are the priorities of the Moscow metro? There is no doubt that the metro's main function is transport, as it has 2.4 billion passengers per year. The second feature that everyone notices is the beauty of the metro, which leads one to believe that metro stations and platforms actually form an informal museum. Hosting content and a constantly changing audience of commuters, the Moscow metro is tantamount to the Hermitage. A key part of daily life for Moscow's residents, the metro is integral to the city's urban culture, and in this way it could be said to be an urban museum. Although the content remains within the stations regardless of their location, most cultural events and institutions in metro are located in the stations located in the center of the city. The stations on the periphery remain untouched by adornment or special events. In this project, I propose models for content development for newly built and existing stations. And after studying two stations located on the outer edge of Moscow, I created a proposal that includes social engagement, involves local citizens and adds another layer of value to the metro.

Image source: Dushkina Natalya.Aleksey

Nikolaevich Dushkin. Architecture of 1930-1950

years.Moscow:A-fond,2004.

METRO HISTORY AND RATES OF CONSTRUCTION

s t a l i n k h r u s h c hevb r e z h n e v p u t i ny e l t s i ngorbachevandropov

chernenkomalenkov1950194019301910 1960 1970 1990 2000 2010 20201980

medvedev

e x a m p l e s b e r l i n l o n d o np a r i sp r o j e c t ss p e c i a l i s t sd u b e l i rb a l i n s k yk n o r r ea n t o n o v i c hr o z a n o vm i s h e n k o vg e r b k oh o f u t k i n g u s h k o vvishegradskys i e m e n s -b a u n i o ne x p e r i m e n tt r a n s p o r tp o p u l a t i o nm o s c o wk a g a n o v i c hfast and cheapp a l a c e smasterp iecec o n s t r u c -tion stagesp y a t i l e t k a

e x a m p l e s new yorkp a r i shong kongp r o j e c t ss p e c i a l i s t sexper imen t -fast and cheapu t i l i t a r i a nc o n t e n tconstruct ion t u n n e l ss h i e l ds t a t i o n sb u d g e tr a t e sm e t r o -g i p r o t r a n ss h u m a k o va r c h i t e c t se n g i n e e r snew modelm e t r otechnologiesb l o g g e r sm e t r om e t r om e t r om e t r om e t r o

shipilovskayazyablikovo

novokosinonijnyaya maslovka

hodinskoe polepetrovsky park

butirskayafonvizinskaya

okrujnayajulebinokotelniki

luberezkie polyabrateevo

seligerskayaverhnie lihobori

lubyanka ohotny ryad

mayakovskayabaumanskayaizmaylovskaya

stalinskayanovokuznezkaya

park kulturi

oktyabrskayafrunzenskayasportivnayauniversitet

dobrininskaya

ugo zapadnayaakademicheskaya

profsouznayapervomayskayaschelkovskayapionerskaya

novie cheremushkikolomenskayakashirskaya

varshavskayaproletarskaya

ryazansky prospekt

kalujskayabelyaevotverskaya

pushkinskayanovogireevo

avaiamotornayaschosse entuziastov

suharevskayabotanichesky sadkuznezky most

planernayashodnenskayapolejaevskaya

begovaya

polyankazvetnoy bulvarsavelovskaya

orehovoborovizkayateply stanbelyaevotulskaya

nagatinskayanagornaya

serpuhovskayachertanovskayachehovskaya

mariunouliza podbelskogo

dubrovkaaltufievo

dmitrovskayabibirevo

kojuhovskayalublino

pechatnikikrestianskaya zastava

mititnovolokolamskaya

myakininoslavyansky boulvar

aninotrubnaya

sretensky boulvarmejdunarodnayavistavochnayapark pobedi

strogino

76

Underground Museum Ekaterina Varionchik

The metro is not just a part of the city's infrastructure, but it is also a public space, a potential home for different types of content. It is a system that can be changed to acquire added value in order to become a living museum. An urban museum is a museum that presents the daily life of the city in a cultural sense.

First, I would like to analyze the primary reasons for the metro's construction. Actually, there were two of them – transportation and ideology. The population of Moscow was intensively increasing at the time. Four million people were living in Moscow by 1930, and the popula-tion kept growing due to an intensive urbanization process. As a result, the existing trans-portation system needed radical transformation. In European cities such as Berlin, London and Paris, subway systems appeared earlier. In Paris, the subway system was created in 1900, when its population numbered 2.7 million people.2 Berlin's transportation system was formed in 1902, when there were 2.5 million people living in the city,3 while London's system was created in1863, when the city's population numbered 2.8 million.4 That means that there was a dramatic demand for a transportation system in Moscow in the late 1920s.

The second reason for the metro's creation was ideological. The basic idea was to demon-strate the advantages of the Soviet project to the rest of the world through the creation of the best and most beautiful metro in the world in the capital of USSR. It also aimed to indoctri-nate Soviet people with visual propaganda. Metro became not just transportation infrastruc-ture but also an “underground palace” for the working class5.

The whole history of metro construction is connected to foreign experience.6 Examples in the three main European capitals--London, Paris and Berlin--were taken into consideration while developing the Moscow metro. Russian specialists went to Europe to study technolo-gies, and European and American specialists were invited to work on the Moscow project.

Moscow’s expansion, transportation problems and traffic jams are probably the most disput-able issues in Moscow and even the Moscow region. Metro is the main transportation system in Moscow; it provides 56% of the entire public transportation capacity. The Moscow metro is also often considered one of the most beautiful and fast1 transportation systems in the world. Nevertheless, the transportation function was not the only priority during the Moscow metro construction; it also had great ideological significance.

The question is: what are the priorities of the metro today?

The metro network was not only designed to solve transportation issues but also to develop the public space as a space of self representation of the country. The metro has become a museum, an underground museum that presents the daily life of the city in a cultural sense.

How is the metro perceived today? What are the priorities of the Moscow metro? There is no doubt that the metro's main function is transport, as it has 2.4 billion passengers per year. The second feature that everyone notices is the beauty of the metro, which leads one to believe that metro stations and platforms actually form an informal museum. Hosting content and a constantly changing audience of commuters, the Moscow metro is tantamount to the Hermitage. A key part of daily life for Moscow's residents, the metro is integral to the city's urban culture, and in this way it could be said to be an urban museum. Although the content remains within the stations regardless of their location, most cultural events and institutions in metro are located in the stations located in the center of the city. The stations on the periphery remain untouched by adornment or special events. In this project, I propose models for content development for newly built and existing stations. And after studying two stations located on the outer edge of Moscow, I created a proposal that includes social engagement, involves local citizens and adds another layer of value to the metro.

Image source: Dushkina Natalya.Aleksey

Nikolaevich Dushkin. Architecture of 1930-1950

years.Moscow:A-fond,2004.

METRO HISTORY AND RATES OF CONSTRUCTION

s t a l i n k h r u s h c hevb r e z h n e v p u t i ny e l t s i ngorbachevandropov

chernenkomalenkov1950194019301910 1960 1970 1990 2000 2010 20201980

medvedev

e x a m p l e s b e r l i n l o n d o np a r i sp r o j e c t ss p e c i a l i s t sd u b e l i rb a l i n s k yk n o r r ea n t o n o v i c hr o z a n o vm i s h e n k o vg e r b k oh o f u t k i n g u s h k o vvishegradskys i e m e n s -b a u n i o ne x p e r i m e n tt r a n s p o r tp o p u l a t i o nm o s c o wk a g a n o v i c hfast and cheapp a l a c e smasterp iecec o n s t r u c -tion stagesp y a t i l e t k a

e x a m p l e s new yorkp a r i shong kongp r o j e c t ss p e c i a l i s t sexper imen t -fast and cheapu t i l i t a r i a nc o n t e n tconstruct ion t u n n e l ss h i e l ds t a t i o n sb u d g e tr a t e sm e t r o -g i p r o t r a n ss h u m a k o va r c h i t e c t se n g i n e e r snew modelm e t r otechnologiesb l o g g e r sm e t r om e t r om e t r om e t r om e t r o

shipilovskayazyablikovo

novokosinonijnyaya maslovka

hodinskoe polepetrovsky park

butirskayafonvizinskaya

okrujnayajulebinokotelniki

luberezkie polyabrateevo

seligerskayaverhnie lihobori

lubyanka ohotny ryad

mayakovskayabaumanskayaizmaylovskaya

stalinskayanovokuznezkaya

park kulturi

oktyabrskayafrunzenskayasportivnayauniversitet

dobrininskaya

ugo zapadnayaakademicheskaya

profsouznayapervomayskayaschelkovskayapionerskaya

novie cheremushkikolomenskayakashirskaya

varshavskayaproletarskaya

ryazansky prospekt

kalujskayabelyaevotverskaya

pushkinskayanovogireevo

avaiamotornayaschosse entuziastov

suharevskayabotanichesky sadkuznezky most

planernayashodnenskayapolejaevskaya

begovaya

polyankazvetnoy bulvarsavelovskaya

orehovoborovizkayateply stanbelyaevotulskaya

nagatinskayanagornaya

serpuhovskayachertanovskayachehovskaya

mariunouliza podbelskogo

dubrovkaaltufievo

dmitrovskayabibirevo

kojuhovskayalublino

pechatnikikrestianskaya zastava

mititnovolokolamskaya

myakininoslavyansky boulvar

aninotrubnaya

sretensky boulvarmejdunarodnayavistavochnayapark pobedi

strogino

77

stories about restoration made by metrogiprotrans

stories about restoration made by metrogiprotrans

based on the register of cultural heritage

made by the department of cultural heritage of

moscow

STATIONS WITH SPECIFIC CULTURALLY VALUABLE

CATEGORIES

2020

145,5 км

67 new stations

1 000 000 000 rub

2012

104 281 616 300 rub

Although all foreign projects per se were rejected, the developers decided to use island plat-forms as in London and Berlin because they give more opportunities to passengers. At the same time, island platforms are more expensive and require more architectural work than and Paris-style boarding platforms, which are cheaper and more simple in terms of construc-tion. Both types of stations were used, but most of them, namely 147 stations,7 have island platforms.

The main resolution on metro was adopted at the June Plenary assembly of the Central Com-mittee of VKP (b) in 1931 and was dedicated to reconstruction and further development of cities. Due to this document, the metro had to become the main transportation system and the top-priority construction site for the whole country8. Although foreign engineers were involved in designing the metro, architecture and design were made exclusively for each station by the best Soviet architects, such as A.Dushkin, B. Vilensky, A. Schusev, V. Schuko, V. Gelfreih, I. Fomin, L. Polyakov and L. Pavlov.

The whole process of metro construction was strictly observed and controlled by the govern-ment, and metro development was always strictly connected to city planning. It means that maps of metro development were always following the city's master plan. Metro was built and developed over the years at different speeds, with varied beauty, architecture and qual-ity.9

What I faced later is the contradiction between metro as a cultural and ideological monu-ment and metro as a tool of transportation. These two lines or discourses intersected during the 1990s, after the collapse of the USSR, when the ideological significance vanished to trans-form into cultural significance. At that time, metro was for the first time considered heritage and included in cultural preservation documents.

According to documents from Moscow’s Department of Cultural Heritage,10 only 23% of all metro stations are considered culturally valuable, preserved sites (objects of cultural value or objects of regional value).11 The preservation issue is very important, but the heritage is not always preserved properly. Restoration, time and the necessity to modernize stations has led to destructive changes that are different for each station: escalators and lamps are being changed, and some details like lamp pendants are completely disappearing (as happened at Oktyabrskaya metro station). There are also lots of stories about floor renovation. Restoration of the Mayakovskaya metro station is a good example here as the whole idea and image of the

station was destroyed. Dushkin created Mayakovskaya inspired by the airport takeoff run-way, so the quantity of transverse joints was minimized in longitudinal light lines to accent the floor dynamics20. This is now gone. Almost the same thing happened with the central line of the station made of “salietti” red marble. Two long tight slabs were placed together to accent the precise axis of the station. The whole structure of that line is lost today because it is now a combination of square slabs with a lot of transverse joints. The main problem is that the visual effects system is lost, and being listed as a culturally valuable object did not prevent the station's architecture from destruction. Metrogiprotrans, the organization responsi-ble for the restoration, believes that changing the escalators and adding new passages will increase the ease of the flow of traffic in the metro station.21

Again, I would like to stress that metro is the main transportation system of the city--and itImages sources: www.metro.ru

Image source: www.archnadzor.ruMOSCOW AREA

WITH METRO STATIONS

STATIONS TIMELINE

METRO EXPANSION

78

stories about restoration made by metrogiprotrans

stories about restoration made by metrogiprotrans

based on the register of cultural heritage

made by the department of cultural heritage of

moscow

STATIONS WITH SPECIFIC CULTURALLY VALUABLE

CATEGORIES

2020

145,5 км

67 new stations

1 000 000 000 rub

2012

104 281 616 300 rub

Although all foreign projects per se were rejected, the developers decided to use island plat-forms as in London and Berlin because they give more opportunities to passengers. At the same time, island platforms are more expensive and require more architectural work than and Paris-style boarding platforms, which are cheaper and more simple in terms of construc-tion. Both types of stations were used, but most of them, namely 147 stations,7 have island platforms.

The main resolution on metro was adopted at the June Plenary assembly of the Central Com-mittee of VKP (b) in 1931 and was dedicated to reconstruction and further development of cities. Due to this document, the metro had to become the main transportation system and the top-priority construction site for the whole country8. Although foreign engineers were involved in designing the metro, architecture and design were made exclusively for each station by the best Soviet architects, such as A.Dushkin, B. Vilensky, A. Schusev, V. Schuko, V. Gelfreih, I. Fomin, L. Polyakov and L. Pavlov.

The whole process of metro construction was strictly observed and controlled by the govern-ment, and metro development was always strictly connected to city planning. It means that maps of metro development were always following the city's master plan. Metro was built and developed over the years at different speeds, with varied beauty, architecture and qual-ity.9

What I faced later is the contradiction between metro as a cultural and ideological monu-ment and metro as a tool of transportation. These two lines or discourses intersected during the 1990s, after the collapse of the USSR, when the ideological significance vanished to trans-form into cultural significance. At that time, metro was for the first time considered heritage and included in cultural preservation documents.

According to documents from Moscow’s Department of Cultural Heritage,10 only 23% of all metro stations are considered culturally valuable, preserved sites (objects of cultural value or objects of regional value).11 The preservation issue is very important, but the heritage is not always preserved properly. Restoration, time and the necessity to modernize stations has led to destructive changes that are different for each station: escalators and lamps are being changed, and some details like lamp pendants are completely disappearing (as happened at Oktyabrskaya metro station). There are also lots of stories about floor renovation. Restoration of the Mayakovskaya metro station is a good example here as the whole idea and image of the

station was destroyed. Dushkin created Mayakovskaya inspired by the airport takeoff run-way, so the quantity of transverse joints was minimized in longitudinal light lines to accent the floor dynamics20. This is now gone. Almost the same thing happened with the central line of the station made of “salietti” red marble. Two long tight slabs were placed together to accent the precise axis of the station. The whole structure of that line is lost today because it is now a combination of square slabs with a lot of transverse joints. The main problem is that the visual effects system is lost, and being listed as a culturally valuable object did not prevent the station's architecture from destruction. Metrogiprotrans, the organization responsi-ble for the restoration, believes that changing the escalators and adding new passages will increase the ease of the flow of traffic in the metro station.21

Again, I would like to stress that metro is the main transportation system of the city--and itImages sources: www.metro.ru

Image source: www.archnadzor.ruMOSCOW AREA

WITH METRO STATIONS

STATIONS TIMELINE

METRO EXPANSION

79

metro is museum

90 sec waiting for the train23 min average one way journey

time expenditure

by www.mosmetro.ru

5 min in front of the picture90 min average museum tour

is still developing and growing with the city. One can say that metro is developing like any museum and also experiencing constant changes. There are going to be new 67 stations by 2020, which means additional an 145 kilometers of track14 and an investment of more than 1 billion rubles15. That means that stations will be build up quite extensively, and the speed of construction is going to be at least two times faster than that in the Soviet period.

So where are we going? Will future metro development result in the loss of all its cultural components? Shall we reconsider metro as utilitarian transportation system only? Or is there a way to fill the hardware of the peripheral stations with a new kind of software, and intensively use it as a public space dedicated to public cultural events such as presentations, performances, exhibitions and concerts? Such practices are not so popular nowadays, but they definitely exist. The table below shows some of them.

As can be seen from the table, very few stations are used, and they are rarely used to host public cultural events. At the same time, the potential of such activities is enormous, just like the available space.

The Moscow metro is potentially one of the great-est open, living museums in the world.

And the goal is to make metro an updated museum. Its content has reflected urban life in the Soviet period for a long time, but the times have changed and interactivity is the major new dimension that is missing currently in this urban museum.

It is the museum that was transforming throughout this period of time. The design of sta-tions was changing through the years from Culture 2 style to modernism and contemporary architecture16. The architecture is exactly what makes Moscow metro unique and world famous. The process of creating the most beautiful metro lasted until Stalin’s death. Later, in 1955, Khrushev initiated a resolution “On eliminating overabundance in design and construc-tion”, and metro stations became much more austere.17 This process affected the whole coun-try, i.e. Luzhniki stadium, Hotel Leningradskaya, residential building construction, etc.

Now, I would like to compare the structures of the metro and the museum. The Hermitage museum based in St. Petersburg was chosen for such a comparison because it is one of the largest museums in Russia and in the world and its history runs back to the middle of the eighteenth century, when it was merely a private collection of Empresses Elizaveta and later Ekaterina. The collections and palaces were claimed as a state museum in 1917. At present, the State Hermitage Museum boasts 3.8 million showpieces, 300 halls and seven buildings18 while metro has

185 stations,12 lines with 305 kilometers of track and around 10,000 trains.1 Metro has 44 times as many employees as the Hermitage (865 employees18 in Hermitage vs. 38,636 metro employees19), and it has a passenger flow that is 1,000 times more than the amount of people visiting Hermitage every year (2.5 million visi-tors to Hermitage20 vs. 2.4 billion passengers per year in metro21).

People usually spend five minutes in front of the masterpiece, and their total stay in the museum averages 90 minutes. Moscow metro passengers spend 90 seconds waiting for a train (and the average one-way journey21 lasts 23 minutes).

In terms of structure, it appears that metro is 14 times larger than the Hermitage (the metro occupies a space of around 888,000 sq. m.21 while the Hermitage is 62,324 sq. m.22).

The city as the main stakeholder of the metro is also responsible for the public space of the

2010

2010

Exhibition dedicated to the 65 Victory Anniversary

Exhibition “Chinaware

1990

1994

2006

2007

2010

2011

2006

2006-2007

2010

2009

2011

2010-2012

2011-2012

Cherkashin performance wedding in metro, underground subbotnik

Ptuc magazine presentation

Conference HERITAGE AT RISK

Art-group Voina – Prigov’s wake

Photoexhibition Moscow-Paris

Theatre dolls exhibition

Photoexhibition by Yury Rost

Trains “Akvarel” and “Krasnsya strela

Photoexhibition “Young and famous

Classic music performance

Exhibition “Metro that does not exist

Metro concerts and museum night

Silver camera” contest-photo exhibition

Ploshad revolutsii

Krasnie vorota

Kropotkinskaya

Circle line

Vistavochnaya

Park pobedi

Vorobievi gori

Vistavochnaya

Vistavochnaya

Mayakovskaya

Vorobievi gori

Vistavochnaya

Kropotkinskaya

Park kulturi passage

Image source: http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/condor213/view/64911/?page=0

Image source: http://www.asergeev.com/pictures/archives/compress/2011/974/20.htm

Image source: http://active.russia.obnovlenie.ru/the-hermitage-museum/6205/

62 324 hermitage sq meters

888 000 metro sq meters

METRO MUSEUM

METRO PEOPLE

METRO AND HERMITAGE SQUARES

80

metro is museum

90 sec waiting for the train23 min average one way journey

time expenditure

by www.mosmetro.ru

5 min in front of the picture90 min average museum tour

is still developing and growing with the city. One can say that metro is developing like any museum and also experiencing constant changes. There are going to be new 67 stations by 2020, which means additional an 145 kilometers of track14 and an investment of more than 1 billion rubles15. That means that stations will be build up quite extensively, and the speed of construction is going to be at least two times faster than that in the Soviet period.

So where are we going? Will future metro development result in the loss of all its cultural components? Shall we reconsider metro as utilitarian transportation system only? Or is there a way to fill the hardware of the peripheral stations with a new kind of software, and intensively use it as a public space dedicated to public cultural events such as presentations, performances, exhibitions and concerts? Such practices are not so popular nowadays, but they definitely exist. The table below shows some of them.

As can be seen from the table, very few stations are used, and they are rarely used to host public cultural events. At the same time, the potential of such activities is enormous, just like the available space.

The Moscow metro is potentially one of the great-est open, living museums in the world.

And the goal is to make metro an updated museum. Its content has reflected urban life in the Soviet period for a long time, but the times have changed and interactivity is the major new dimension that is missing currently in this urban museum.

It is the museum that was transforming throughout this period of time. The design of sta-tions was changing through the years from Culture 2 style to modernism and contemporary architecture16. The architecture is exactly what makes Moscow metro unique and world famous. The process of creating the most beautiful metro lasted until Stalin’s death. Later, in 1955, Khrushev initiated a resolution “On eliminating overabundance in design and construc-tion”, and metro stations became much more austere.17 This process affected the whole coun-try, i.e. Luzhniki stadium, Hotel Leningradskaya, residential building construction, etc.

Now, I would like to compare the structures of the metro and the museum. The Hermitage museum based in St. Petersburg was chosen for such a comparison because it is one of the largest museums in Russia and in the world and its history runs back to the middle of the eighteenth century, when it was merely a private collection of Empresses Elizaveta and later Ekaterina. The collections and palaces were claimed as a state museum in 1917. At present, the State Hermitage Museum boasts 3.8 million showpieces, 300 halls and seven buildings18 while metro has

185 stations,12 lines with 305 kilometers of track and around 10,000 trains.1 Metro has 44 times as many employees as the Hermitage (865 employees18 in Hermitage vs. 38,636 metro employees19), and it has a passenger flow that is 1,000 times more than the amount of people visiting Hermitage every year (2.5 million visi-tors to Hermitage20 vs. 2.4 billion passengers per year in metro21).

People usually spend five minutes in front of the masterpiece, and their total stay in the museum averages 90 minutes. Moscow metro passengers spend 90 seconds waiting for a train (and the average one-way journey21 lasts 23 minutes).

In terms of structure, it appears that metro is 14 times larger than the Hermitage (the metro occupies a space of around 888,000 sq. m.21 while the Hermitage is 62,324 sq. m.22).

The city as the main stakeholder of the metro is also responsible for the public space of the

2010

2010

Exhibition dedicated to the 65 Victory Anniversary

Exhibition “Chinaware

1990

1994

2006

2007

2010

2011

2006

2006-2007

2010

2009

2011

2010-2012

2011-2012

Cherkashin performance wedding in metro, underground subbotnik

Ptuc magazine presentation

Conference HERITAGE AT RISK

Art-group Voina – Prigov’s wake

Photoexhibition Moscow-Paris

Theatre dolls exhibition

Photoexhibition by Yury Rost

Trains “Akvarel” and “Krasnsya strela

Photoexhibition “Young and famous

Classic music performance

Exhibition “Metro that does not exist

Metro concerts and museum night

Silver camera” contest-photo exhibition

Ploshad revolutsii

Krasnie vorota

Kropotkinskaya

Circle line

Vistavochnaya

Park pobedi

Vorobievi gori

Vistavochnaya

Vistavochnaya

Mayakovskaya

Vorobievi gori

Vistavochnaya

Kropotkinskaya

Park kulturi passage

Image source: http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/condor213/view/64911/?page=0

Image source: http://www.asergeev.com/pictures/archives/compress/2011/974/20.htm

Image source: http://active.russia.obnovlenie.ru/the-hermitage-museum/6205/

62 324 hermitage sq meters

888 000 metro sq meters

METRO MUSEUM

METRO PEOPLE

METRO AND HERMITAGE SQUARES

81

Globally, there are 30 dedicated metro museums and only 12 guided tours awaiting tourists.27 What I mean to say is that museums do usually have a specific program while metro perform-ances are spontaneous and dedicated to the most vital problems of the society or country (in most cases). The Moscow metro has or is planning to have all types of activities and content. Unfortunately, these events happen mostly in the city center, which means that there is a huge concentration of heritage and content there. By contrast, I think decentralization would be useful.

I have created two scenarios for metro development. One of them would deal with the exist-ing metro stations that were built from the 1950s through to the 1980s, and the other is a per-spective scenario of what should be done with the 67 new stations that are to appear by 2020.First, I will begin with the first part, which concerns content for the metro stations built from the 1950s through to the 1980s. I would like to come up with the project of introducing more content to the non-central train stations. These train stations on the periphery should become social attractions, so that similar proposals can be developed for other stations depending on their location. I used the following criteria to choose the stations: 1) the sta-tions should be located in a residential area, more or less peripheral and near MKAD; 2) an index of correlation between the number of cultural institutions and area population should be average.

I chose the East Administrative District (EAD), as I formulate a typical solution for the place and metro. First, it is necessary to connect underground spaces with the city area. Areas that have a lot of cultural institutions do not need any culture inside the metro while areas that have no cultural institutions need to improve the situation before creating anything under-ground. And in the areas with an average index, residents are more or less prepared for the fact that something could appear at the stations.

Our planet now has 9,384 metro stations, and only 24 stations in 13 cities display archaeological artifacts found during metro construction; 18 different exclusive typefaces are in use by metro operators.

IZMAILOVO CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS

STATE PROGRAM OF THE MOSCOW CITY“CULTURE OF MOSCOW

2012-2016“

136

7006.7%

15.3%

10.8%

13.4%

11.9%10.7%

10.1%

11.4%

7.6%

2.1%

117

119

100

106

65

83

20

97

museums353

182

140

448

100

97

47

theaters

libraries

cinemas

exhibition space

concert organisations

cultural centers

0.12

1.14

2.7

2.2

1.69

1.66

1.57

wad

nwad

ead

nead

sead

nad

sad

swad

1.77

1.4

M

M

M

M

M

M

MM

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

MM M

M

M

M

M

MM

MM M MMMM

MM

MMMMM

MMM

M

M

MM M

MMM M

MMMMM

M

MMM

MM

MM

M

MM

MMM

M

MMM

MMM

MMM

MMM

MM

MM

M

MMM

M M

M

M

MM

MMMM

MM

MM

M

M

M

MM

M

MM

M

M

M

M

MM

M

M

M

M

M

M

MM

MM

M

M

M

M

M M MM

M

M

M

M

MMM

M

MM M

M

M

M

MM

MMM

M M

M

M

MM

M M

M

MM

M M

M

M

M

MM

M

M

M

M

STATE PROGRAM“CULTURE OF MOSCOW 2012-2016“

55% of cultural institutions

use

93.3% of population

100%=10404 people

1540 cultural institutions

index = population% / cultural institutions%

metro, which is why it is important to look into the concept of the culture of Moscow in order to understand how it is reflected in the metro.

Following the program “Culture of Moscow 2012-2016”, which was created by the Moscow City Government and the Department of Cultural Heritage, the majority of cultural institu-tions today is situated in the central part of the city, where 6.7% of the entire Moscow popula-tion lives.23 That means that the other 93.3% uses only 55% of cultural institutions.24

Nowadays, metro is used not only as a transportation system, but also as a static museum with guided tours for foreigners and locals.25 And this is the first step to adding value to metro because its space can be used in a more broad and diverse way.

Something has been already done and events such as the 1990 Cherkashini performance “Wedding in the metro", the 1990 “Underground subbotnik” at Ploshad revolutsii, the 2010 Concert at Mayakovskaya, museum nights in 2010-12 and exhibitions at Vorobyevy Gory and Vystavochnaya are inspiring examples of such activities. At the same time, such events are still few and happen in three or four locations.

There are 61 stations with pillars, 92 with columns and 32 single-vaulted stations. They all have passenger flows connected to their geographical location. That means that pillar sta-tions are mostly situated in the city center because their construction allow them bear a huge amount of ground. These stations are usually of deep stratification.26 As to the other two types, they are usually situated in the periphery of the city, and they are shallow and more people go through them, accordingly.

Both the metro and the museum combine different forms of content. For the museum, this content includes permanent exhibitions, performances, temporary exhibitions and instal-lations, technical services (including a library, laboratories and Wi-Fi) and tools for social engagement.

Whereas metro worldwide has stations as its main masterpieces, remarkable for their inte-rior design. However, there are also audio and visual performances, installations, rare tempo-rary exhibitions (as well as internet service). It may appear as though the typology of content is quite similar, and this is in a way correct, but the content and the events themselves are completely different in terms of messages to the public.

82

Globally, there are 30 dedicated metro museums and only 12 guided tours awaiting tourists.27 What I mean to say is that museums do usually have a specific program while metro perform-ances are spontaneous and dedicated to the most vital problems of the society or country (in most cases). The Moscow metro has or is planning to have all types of activities and content. Unfortunately, these events happen mostly in the city center, which means that there is a huge concentration of heritage and content there. By contrast, I think decentralization would be useful.

I have created two scenarios for metro development. One of them would deal with the exist-ing metro stations that were built from the 1950s through to the 1980s, and the other is a per-spective scenario of what should be done with the 67 new stations that are to appear by 2020.First, I will begin with the first part, which concerns content for the metro stations built from the 1950s through to the 1980s. I would like to come up with the project of introducing more content to the non-central train stations. These train stations on the periphery should become social attractions, so that similar proposals can be developed for other stations depending on their location. I used the following criteria to choose the stations: 1) the sta-tions should be located in a residential area, more or less peripheral and near MKAD; 2) an index of correlation between the number of cultural institutions and area population should be average.

I chose the East Administrative District (EAD), as I formulate a typical solution for the place and metro. First, it is necessary to connect underground spaces with the city area. Areas that have a lot of cultural institutions do not need any culture inside the metro while areas that have no cultural institutions need to improve the situation before creating anything under-ground. And in the areas with an average index, residents are more or less prepared for the fact that something could appear at the stations.

Our planet now has 9,384 metro stations, and only 24 stations in 13 cities display archaeological artifacts found during metro construction; 18 different exclusive typefaces are in use by metro operators.

IZMAILOVO CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS

STATE PROGRAM OF THE MOSCOW CITY“CULTURE OF MOSCOW

2012-2016“

136

7006.7%

15.3%

10.8%

13.4%

11.9%10.7%

10.1%

11.4%

7.6%

2.1%

117

119

100

106

65

83

20

97

museums353

182

140

448

100

97

47

theaters

libraries

cinemas

exhibition space

concert organisations

cultural centers

0.12

1.14

2.7

2.2

1.69

1.66

1.57

wad

nwad

ead

nead

sead

nad

sad

swad

1.77

1.4

M

M

M

M

M

M

MM

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

MM M

M

M

M

M

MM

MM M MMMM

MM

MMMMM

MMM

M

M

MM M

MMM M

MMMMM

M

MMM

MM

MM

M

MM

MMM

M

MMM

MMM

MMM

MMM

MM

MM

M

MMM

M M

M

M

MM

MMMM

MM

MM

M

M

M

MM

M

MM

M

M

M

M

MM

M

M

M

M

M

M

MM

MM

M

M

M

M

M M MM

M

M

M

M

MMM

M

MM M

M

M

M

MM

MMM

M M

M

M

MM

M M

M

MM

M M

M

M

M

MM

M

M

M

M

STATE PROGRAM“CULTURE OF MOSCOW 2012-2016“

55% of cultural institutions

use

93.3% of population

100%=10404 people

1540 cultural institutions

index = population% / cultural institutions%

metro, which is why it is important to look into the concept of the culture of Moscow in order to understand how it is reflected in the metro.

Following the program “Culture of Moscow 2012-2016”, which was created by the Moscow City Government and the Department of Cultural Heritage, the majority of cultural institu-tions today is situated in the central part of the city, where 6.7% of the entire Moscow popula-tion lives.23 That means that the other 93.3% uses only 55% of cultural institutions.24

Nowadays, metro is used not only as a transportation system, but also as a static museum with guided tours for foreigners and locals.25 And this is the first step to adding value to metro because its space can be used in a more broad and diverse way.

Something has been already done and events such as the 1990 Cherkashini performance “Wedding in the metro", the 1990 “Underground subbotnik” at Ploshad revolutsii, the 2010 Concert at Mayakovskaya, museum nights in 2010-12 and exhibitions at Vorobyevy Gory and Vystavochnaya are inspiring examples of such activities. At the same time, such events are still few and happen in three or four locations.

There are 61 stations with pillars, 92 with columns and 32 single-vaulted stations. They all have passenger flows connected to their geographical location. That means that pillar sta-tions are mostly situated in the city center because their construction allow them bear a huge amount of ground. These stations are usually of deep stratification.26 As to the other two types, they are usually situated in the periphery of the city, and they are shallow and more people go through them, accordingly.

Both the metro and the museum combine different forms of content. For the museum, this content includes permanent exhibitions, performances, temporary exhibitions and instal-lations, technical services (including a library, laboratories and Wi-Fi) and tools for social engagement.

Whereas metro worldwide has stations as its main masterpieces, remarkable for their inte-rior design. However, there are also audio and visual performances, installations, rare tempo-rary exhibitions (as well as internet service). It may appear as though the typology of content is quite similar, and this is in a way correct, but the content and the events themselves are completely different in terms of messages to the public.

83

Within the EAD, the Izmailovo, North Izmailovo and East Izmailovo districts were chosen. I also chose two periphery stations for the district where some kind of content could be devel-oped. The dark blue line (Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya line) goes through this area, and it has an approximately average passenger flow compared to the other lines. The table shows stations situated in two of the three districts mentioned (East Izmailovo has no metro stations).28

The Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya line connects different types of industrial and post-industrial areas. On the one hand, there is Vinzavod, Artplay, Arma, Project Fabrika and Electrozavod, which are situated not far from the center. On the other hand, there are industrial towns situ-ated to the east of Moscow (Balashiha, Schelkovo and others). Meanwhile, Izmailovo itself is almost purely residential, with a population of 266,150.29

The Partizanskaya metro station has a flow of 51,450 passengers per day and is listed as a site of cultural heritage of regional value. As such, it is necessary to add cultural events and content that would not disturb the station itself. The most interesting thing is that the station has three tracks, but only two of them are in a constant use--this fact provides numerous opportunities. The new Izmailovo Kremlin and Hotel Izmailovo are situated near the station, which means that there are a lot of tourists in the area. It also has Izmailovo center of crafts and textile manufacture. Likewise, the only souvenir market in town is situated near the hotel and the station. There are several theaters in the district (including the Gesture Theater, which has a rather unique Soviet heritage, and the Theatre of Shadows, whose audience is mostly children).

The area around the Pervomayskaya metro station is mostly residential, and the neighbor-hood was built in the 1950s following the master plan for 1945-57. The area has a lot of infra-structure around residential buildings: schools, shops, kindergartens, leisure areas, libraries, art and music schools near the station. Pervomayskaya`s average daily passenger flow is 57,800 people.

Below are two cultural programs to develop the metro stations and endow them with more cultural value.

For Partizanskaya, the following program is suggested:

1. Theatre performances near the dull wall by the aforementioned local theatres in the eve-nings.

2. Short movies about the history of the district, the new Kremlin and former Cherkizovsky market at the side walls of the station during the day.

3. Monthly concerts of contemporary rock and electronic music (like Teslaboy and Moto-rama); contemporary dance performances near the dull wall at night; classical music or contemporary academic music concerts near the dull wall at night.

4. Live talk shows with the participation of celebrities or the involvement of local or city politi-cians near the dull wall at night.

5. Poetry readings at night.

6. A weekend museum train on the third track, which can be easily accessed from both platforms. This train can host exhibitions and performances made by students of local or not so local music and art schools as well as exhibitions of crafts and products from the Izmailovskaya manufactory.

7. Other types of exhibitions can be put on by famous artists and curators or by local galleries and artists, i.e. the station can be easily used as one of the spaces for the Moscow art biennale and or for projects by young artists. Projects can be connected with the Izmailovsky Park and Sirenevyi Boulevard. Moreover, a social component could easily be added: such projects can include stories or photographs by locals or visiting tourists.

For Pervomayskaya, the following program is suggested:

1. Installation of special boxes that allow for the return books to local libraries in the metro hall.

2. Portraits or posters of the area's inhabitants or even metro workers (this metro line was the second to be constructed, so it has quite a history) on the side walls. 3. Part of the walls' tiling can be substituted by tiles with pictures. Local artists can work on the pictures, adding contemporary art. Such compositions can be changed twice a month, as changing tiles does not require a lot of time.

4. Exhibitions involving local photographers whose pictures can be put on the columns are a way to make people pay attention to what is happening around them.

PARTIZANSKAYA PERVOMAYSKAYA

year

1963 North Izmaylovo column station

column station

open above-ground column

single vaulted station

column station

104 300

57 800

32 500

-

51 450

SchelkovSkaya

1961 Izmaylovo

Izmaylovo

PervomaySkaya

1961 Izmaylovo

Izmaylovo

IzmaylovSkaya

1954 PervomaySkaya(transformed into trains` depot)

1944 PartIzaNSkaya(cultural heritage of regional value)

station name district station construction type daily passenger flow

84

Within the EAD, the Izmailovo, North Izmailovo and East Izmailovo districts were chosen. I also chose two periphery stations for the district where some kind of content could be devel-oped. The dark blue line (Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya line) goes through this area, and it has an approximately average passenger flow compared to the other lines. The table shows stations situated in two of the three districts mentioned (East Izmailovo has no metro stations).28

The Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya line connects different types of industrial and post-industrial areas. On the one hand, there is Vinzavod, Artplay, Arma, Project Fabrika and Electrozavod, which are situated not far from the center. On the other hand, there are industrial towns situ-ated to the east of Moscow (Balashiha, Schelkovo and others). Meanwhile, Izmailovo itself is almost purely residential, with a population of 266,150.29

The Partizanskaya metro station has a flow of 51,450 passengers per day and is listed as a site of cultural heritage of regional value. As such, it is necessary to add cultural events and content that would not disturb the station itself. The most interesting thing is that the station has three tracks, but only two of them are in a constant use--this fact provides numerous opportunities. The new Izmailovo Kremlin and Hotel Izmailovo are situated near the station, which means that there are a lot of tourists in the area. It also has Izmailovo center of crafts and textile manufacture. Likewise, the only souvenir market in town is situated near the hotel and the station. There are several theaters in the district (including the Gesture Theater, which has a rather unique Soviet heritage, and the Theatre of Shadows, whose audience is mostly children).

The area around the Pervomayskaya metro station is mostly residential, and the neighbor-hood was built in the 1950s following the master plan for 1945-57. The area has a lot of infra-structure around residential buildings: schools, shops, kindergartens, leisure areas, libraries, art and music schools near the station. Pervomayskaya`s average daily passenger flow is 57,800 people.

Below are two cultural programs to develop the metro stations and endow them with more cultural value.

For Partizanskaya, the following program is suggested:

1. Theatre performances near the dull wall by the aforementioned local theatres in the eve-nings.

2. Short movies about the history of the district, the new Kremlin and former Cherkizovsky market at the side walls of the station during the day.

3. Monthly concerts of contemporary rock and electronic music (like Teslaboy and Moto-rama); contemporary dance performances near the dull wall at night; classical music or contemporary academic music concerts near the dull wall at night.

4. Live talk shows with the participation of celebrities or the involvement of local or city politi-cians near the dull wall at night.

5. Poetry readings at night.

6. A weekend museum train on the third track, which can be easily accessed from both platforms. This train can host exhibitions and performances made by students of local or not so local music and art schools as well as exhibitions of crafts and products from the Izmailovskaya manufactory.

7. Other types of exhibitions can be put on by famous artists and curators or by local galleries and artists, i.e. the station can be easily used as one of the spaces for the Moscow art biennale and or for projects by young artists. Projects can be connected with the Izmailovsky Park and Sirenevyi Boulevard. Moreover, a social component could easily be added: such projects can include stories or photographs by locals or visiting tourists.

For Pervomayskaya, the following program is suggested:

1. Installation of special boxes that allow for the return books to local libraries in the metro hall.

2. Portraits or posters of the area's inhabitants or even metro workers (this metro line was the second to be constructed, so it has quite a history) on the side walls. 3. Part of the walls' tiling can be substituted by tiles with pictures. Local artists can work on the pictures, adding contemporary art. Such compositions can be changed twice a month, as changing tiles does not require a lot of time.

4. Exhibitions involving local photographers whose pictures can be put on the columns are a way to make people pay attention to what is happening around them.

PARTIZANSKAYA PERVOMAYSKAYA

year

1963 North Izmaylovo column station

column station

open above-ground column

single vaulted station

column station

104 300

57 800

32 500

-

51 450

SchelkovSkaya

1961 Izmaylovo

Izmaylovo

PervomaySkaya

1961 Izmaylovo

Izmaylovo

IzmaylovSkaya

1954 PervomaySkaya(transformed into trains` depot)

1944 PartIzaNSkaya(cultural heritage of regional value)

station name district station construction type daily passenger flow

85

References:

1. http://www.mosmetro.ru/about/2. http://www.demographia.com/db-parissecanal.htm3. http://www.berlin.de/berlin-im-ueberblick/geschichte/kaiserliche_hauptstadt.en.html4. http://www.londononline.co.uk/factfile/historical/5. How we were building the metro .Moscow:Poligraphkniga,19356. YliyaStarostenko,"Thespaceofmetrostationsinprojects1900-1930.Tothe75anni-versaryoftheopeningoffirstmetroline.Science,studiesandexperimentaldesign",inWorks of MARHI: Materials of theoretical and practical conference 12-16 april 2010 . Moscow.:Architecture-M,20107. http://no-exit.org/stations8. http://www.mosmetro.ru/about/history/projects/9. SamuilKravez.Architecture of Moscow metro named after Kaganovich.Moscow:Publish-inghouseofallunionacademyofarchitecture,193910. http://old.dkn.mos.ru./registry11. FederallawN73,25.06.200212. NatalyaDushkina.Live of architect Dushkin 1904-1977.Moscow:A-fond,200413.http://www.archnadzor.ru/2011/02/02/t-ma-v-kontse-tonnelya/#more-6590/;http://www.archnadzor.ru/2011/02/06/t-ma-v-kontse-tonnelya-2/#more-6592(NatalyaSamover,Darknessattheendofthetunnel.Darknessattheendofthetunnel-2.)14. FederalprogramoftheMosocwcity“Developmentofthetransportationsystem2012-2016”15. http://ria.ru/infografika/20120427/636716950.html16. VladimirPaperny.Culture two.Moscow:Newliterarysurvey,201117AlexanderZinoviev.Stalin metro.Historical overview.Moscow:ZinovievA.N.,2011.18. http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_Ru/02/hm2_3.html19. http://mosmetro.ru/about/general/numeral/20. Hermitage General staff buildingOMA/AMO,200321. http://mosmetro.ru/about/general/numeral/22. http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_Ru/00/hm0_1_1.html23. ResolutionofMoscowgovernmentN431-PP,20.09.2011FederalprogramforMos-cowcity“Moscowculture2012-2016”24. ResolutionofRussiaFederationgovernmentN186,3march2012onspecialpurposefederalprogram“CultureofRussia2012-2018”25. http://old.muar.ru/excursions.htm/;http://www.stranatur.ru/ru/Incoming-tours/Excursions/metro-moscow/26. YuryFrolov.Metro stations design.SaintPetersburg;PGUPS,201127. http://mic-ro.com/metro/metrostats.html28.http://www.metroreklama.ru/stat/p_stream/people_stream02.php?line=3#spravka29. http://izmaylowo.org/index.php

scenario for future stations development

what is new metro today?

technologies

scenario for future stations development

what is existing metro today?

Imagesource:http://ru-metro.livejournal.com/3570390.html

Imagesource:Metrostroevez,#26,14.07.2006.www.mosmetro.ru Imagesource:http://www.theblogbelow.com/2008/07/tbm-tunnel-boring-machines.html

Imagesource:http://abandonedplaces.livejournal.com/2476051.html

5.Interactivescreensinstalledatthestationcouldallowpeopletoanswerquestionsaboutthedistrictandleavetheirideasforimprovements.

6.Involvingpeoplethatusethemetroeverydaytofindfellowpassengerstospeakonspe-cifictopics.Theprojectcanconnectpeopleontheweb,givingthemanopportunitytogetacquaintedbeforetheirjourney,tochoosethetopicandtheroute.Moreover,thisinitiativewouldhelplocalstoconnecttoeachotherandcollaborateondifferentinitiativesoutsidethemetro.

7.Anothertoolforsocialengagementisinteractiveartprojects.Theinitiatorgivesapersonasheetofpaperwherethefollowingphrasesarewritten:“Drawsomethingthenpassitalong”,“Iwantthat…”,etc.Thenthesesheetswouldbeputintospecialboxes,andtheselectedresultswillbepublishedonthewebsiteandbecomethecontentofanexpositionatPer-vomayskayalastingseveraldays.

8.Forbothmetrostations,Wi-Ficoverageandthedistributionofmagazinescontainingthedistricts’newswouldbehelpful.

Othertypesofactivitiescouldalsobedevelopedforthe67newstationsthatarealreadyinconstruction.But,fornow,Iperceivethemasanoutlookforthefuture,asthesecondstepthatshouldbedeveloped.Moscowshouldstartwiththefirstscenario.

FollowingMoscowMayorSergeySobyanin’sordinance,themetroshouldbecomeutilitarian,cheapandfastinconstructioninfrastructure.Inlinewiththisidea,Iamalsofairlycertainthataddingsomecontenttothenewstationswillbeusefulintermsofcreatingamorefriendly,socialandculturallyvibrantatmosphereinthecity. METRO CONSTRUCTION SITE

86

References:

1. http://www.mosmetro.ru/about/2. http://www.demographia.com/db-parissecanal.htm3. http://www.berlin.de/berlin-im-ueberblick/geschichte/kaiserliche_hauptstadt.en.html4. http://www.londononline.co.uk/factfile/historical/5. How we were building the metro .Moscow:Poligraphkniga,19356. YliyaStarostenko,"Thespaceofmetrostationsinprojects1900-1930.Tothe75anni-versaryoftheopeningoffirstmetroline.Science,studiesandexperimentaldesign",inWorks of MARHI: Materials of theoretical and practical conference 12-16 april 2010 . Moscow.:Architecture-M,20107. http://no-exit.org/stations8. http://www.mosmetro.ru/about/history/projects/9. SamuilKravez.Architecture of Moscow metro named after Kaganovich.Moscow:Publish-inghouseofallunionacademyofarchitecture,193910. http://old.dkn.mos.ru./registry11. FederallawN73,25.06.200212. NatalyaDushkina.Live of architect Dushkin 1904-1977.Moscow:A-fond,200413.http://www.archnadzor.ru/2011/02/02/t-ma-v-kontse-tonnelya/#more-6590/;http://www.archnadzor.ru/2011/02/06/t-ma-v-kontse-tonnelya-2/#more-6592(NatalyaSamover,Darknessattheendofthetunnel.Darknessattheendofthetunnel-2.)14. FederalprogramoftheMosocwcity“Developmentofthetransportationsystem2012-2016”15. http://ria.ru/infografika/20120427/636716950.html16. VladimirPaperny.Culture two.Moscow:Newliterarysurvey,201117AlexanderZinoviev.Stalin metro.Historical overview.Moscow:ZinovievA.N.,2011.18. http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_Ru/02/hm2_3.html19. http://mosmetro.ru/about/general/numeral/20. Hermitage General staff buildingOMA/AMO,200321. http://mosmetro.ru/about/general/numeral/22. http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_Ru/00/hm0_1_1.html23. ResolutionofMoscowgovernmentN431-PP,20.09.2011FederalprogramforMos-cowcity“Moscowculture2012-2016”24. ResolutionofRussiaFederationgovernmentN186,3march2012onspecialpurposefederalprogram“CultureofRussia2012-2018”25. http://old.muar.ru/excursions.htm/;http://www.stranatur.ru/ru/Incoming-tours/Excursions/metro-moscow/26. YuryFrolov.Metro stations design.SaintPetersburg;PGUPS,201127. http://mic-ro.com/metro/metrostats.html28.http://www.metroreklama.ru/stat/p_stream/people_stream02.php?line=3#spravka29. http://izmaylowo.org/index.php

scenario for future stations development

what is new metro today?

technologies

scenario for future stations development

what is existing metro today?

Imagesource:http://ru-metro.livejournal.com/3570390.html

Imagesource:Metrostroevez,#26,14.07.2006.www.mosmetro.ru Imagesource:http://www.theblogbelow.com/2008/07/tbm-tunnel-boring-machines.html

Imagesource:http://abandonedplaces.livejournal.com/2476051.html

5.Interactivescreensinstalledatthestationcouldallowpeopletoanswerquestionsaboutthedistrictandleavetheirideasforimprovements.

6.Involvingpeoplethatusethemetroeverydaytofindfellowpassengerstospeakonspe-cifictopics.Theprojectcanconnectpeopleontheweb,givingthemanopportunitytogetacquaintedbeforetheirjourney,tochoosethetopicandtheroute.Moreover,thisinitiativewouldhelplocalstoconnecttoeachotherandcollaborateondifferentinitiativesoutsidethemetro.

7.Anothertoolforsocialengagementisinteractiveartprojects.Theinitiatorgivesapersonasheetofpaperwherethefollowingphrasesarewritten:“Drawsomethingthenpassitalong”,“Iwantthat…”,etc.Thenthesesheetswouldbeputintospecialboxes,andtheselectedresultswillbepublishedonthewebsiteandbecomethecontentofanexpositionatPer-vomayskayalastingseveraldays.

8.Forbothmetrostations,Wi-Ficoverageandthedistributionofmagazinescontainingthedistricts’newswouldbehelpful.

Othertypesofactivitiescouldalsobedevelopedforthe67newstationsthatarealreadyinconstruction.But,fornow,Iperceivethemasanoutlookforthefuture,asthesecondstepthatshouldbedeveloped.Moscowshouldstartwiththefirstscenario.

FollowingMoscowMayorSergeySobyanin’sordinance,themetroshouldbecomeutilitarian,cheapandfastinconstructioninfrastructure.Inlinewiththisidea,Iamalsofairlycertainthataddingsomecontenttothenewstationswillbeusefulintermsofcreatingamorefriendly,socialandculturallyvibrantatmosphereinthecity. METRO CONSTRUCTION SITE

87

Extract from the article «Graffiti as new urban language» at Gazeta.ru

Something similar has already been done by the ancient Egyptians, Romans, Vikings and Mayans. And now it’s the Moscow government’s turn. According to some newspaper announcements, somewhere in the center of the city--perhaps in Taganka or maybe at Pushkin Square a graffiti panorama measuring 200 sq. meters will emerge depicting victory over Napoleon in the Patriotic War of 1812. It is estimated that nearly ten teams of artists will take part in the project’s creation.

The Moscow government’s intentions are commendable. The art of graffiti, although present in numerous cultures for several millenia, is considered a relatively new art form. Generally speaking, in the West it was recognized as art only in the 1980s. The Moscow artists will clearly be from the younger generation whose outlook on historical events such as the Patriotic War deserves a place in civil society. At the same time, news of the plans for the graffiti panorama is somewhat surprising. I had the impression that this art form had yet to sufficiently catch on in Moscow for civic authorities to appeal to it for high political purposes. Inasmuch as graffiti art around the world is mostly considered protest art, it is also understood in this way on Moscow’s walls, squares and streets--not counting stupid vandalism, which leads to so much trouble for private and public property. Researchers of graffiti art proceed from the assumption that graffiti fulfills the function of warning about danger and could be read as a thermometer for political activity. This acquires specical meaning during a time of political instability. In this case, graffiti could be an indicator of civic sentiment depending on whether the content is tolerated or consistently persecuted.

It stands to reason that Moscow authorities cannot be suspected of desiring to introduce barbed topics into civic society. Therefore, it does not make sense to conjecture that the graffiti panorama in commemoration of the Patriotic War will hold something unpleasant for its patron such as anti-war statements or critical allusions to Russia’s military action in more recent history. The «artist teams» drawing up the outlines of the war panorama for the Central Administrative District of Moscow are working according to the instructional guidelines from their government patrons, and not according to the principles of free artistic expression. But namely graffiti makes the point of indicating just how freely art can express itself in one country or another.

The West also had to tread this long and difficult path in order to acknowledge it. The recent history of art as concerns street art is also a history of prohibitions. Even now little is known about the first wave of activists; they sought anonymity in order to avoid fines. One of them, arguably the first real graffiti artist in modernity, a Frenchman named Gerard Zlotykamien is generally unknown to the wider public. It is no coincidence that graffiti was born in the 1930s in the U.S. as ganster graffiti. The peace sign of the extraparliamentary opposition became not only a symbol for the anti-war movement, but to this day it is still considered a universal symbol of impersonal protest.

The fate of Harald Naegeli, the «Sprayer of Zurich» demonstrates just how difficult it was for western countries to accept graffiti art. Naegeli painted human figures on the walls of Zurich homes at night until he was arrested in 1981 after a long and unsuccessful investigation. He received a large fine and nine months emprisonment. However, Naegeli managed to avoid arrest in Germany and evaded an international manhunt for some time until he was caught. Even the intercessions of then Federal Chancellor Willy Brandt and artist Joseph Beuys could not help him. In the end, Naegeli was forced to serve his term in jail. Soon his work began to be copied, exhibited in galleries and disseminated far and wide. Naegeli became an invisible celebrity whose art found its imitators. In 1995, the canton authorities of Zurich recognized some of Naegeli’s surviving graffiti as being worthy of preservation. In recent years his drawings of human figures have been conserved by private and public owners. From Naegeli, the dauber, emerged Naegeli, the artist.

88

It happens rarely that contemporary art is held in esteem from the very beginning by social and political circles. However, art itself and civic society the world over has been subject to growing commercialization over the past forty years, but nevertheless this connection--art in civic society--did not lose its communicative potential. The Moscow authorities that ordered the graffiti panorama probably know about this potential. They want to tap into this with the help of a new language--the language of graffiti--in order to celebrate a great anniversary.

It’s completely legal. The issue of artistic freedom is also lawfully emerging in civic society. Various trends in graffiti art in the past thirty years have frequently tread the path from protest to acceptance. That which was initially forbidden later becomes mainstream. However, this is only possible in those societies where, on the one hand, there are rules of the game for free artistic expression (also including its boundaries) that are clearly delineated and where, on the other hand, they are constantly being challenged under the influence of new trends and perhaps even be provocations. No single boundary can stand forever. What is acceptable and what is forbidden should be determined time and time again, sometimes also under influence summoned by great civic resonance with the cause.

And, in my opinion, this is exactly how the matter lies at present in Moscow and Russia: the existing boundaries are blending, once again under debate. This is the law of the dialectic of protest and recognition. The graffiti panorama with Kutuzov and Napoleon is not a bad idea. But only within a framework that includes creative freedom for all other graffiti art as well. The head of Moscow’s cultural department, Sergei Kapkov, is pondering new spaces for street art and wants to launch a pilot program. It doesn’t sound bad. But at the same time he wants to create a board that will review and assess the projects. According to Kapkov, they will be judged by esthetic considerations. Wouldn’t it be good to know what will be liked and what won’t be?

Michael Schindhelm, April 18, 2012

89

Urban Interventions in Moscow Alena Zaytseva

“If you can’t see progress in small things, there is no need to look for it in large”A.P. Chekhov. Boring story

Public space in Moscow today mirrors a growing diversity and intensity of public communi-cation: the tendency among the city’s inhabitants to participate more in ongoing urban and social processes. Urban interventions are evidence of this fact. People do not seem willing to wait for the government to solve issues anymore, as they are becoming more inclined to do so themselves.

The catalogue, being produced as a result of research, covers the variety of informal interven-tion, highlighting specific semantic gaps in Moscow urban culture. Using public space as a platform for highlighting personal ideas on how the city should work and what it should look like, small interventions cause big change in the urban atmosphere. The work of an “urban art partisan” becomes a part of the cityscape, interacts with people and apparently makes them reconsider some parts of their everyday lifestyles, behavior and values.

Informal urban intervention is a visualized statement in public space that is rooted in a personal sense of dissatisfaction with certain aspects of urban life. Residents of the city take up this cause in an effort to affect policy and minds and to participate in creating a picture of just how things should work in the city. Intervention is a tactical instrument that utilizes outdoor art in order to reshape the city's conditions and identity. The power of urban inter-ventions is the ability to focus an individual’s attention on something, shedding light on a topic that was previously unknown or unnoticed. Through this process, it is possible to push society to re-think some issues. Refreshing attitudes and re-focusing social optics, people can become be less indifferent and more devoted to their own city; this process makes them “active customers” who are involved in city development. Among the wide range of urban visual practices, which includes tagging, social activism, political protests, stylish lettering and murals, sensible urban intervention is a niche that is occupied mostly by young, well-educated locals. These urbanites do not remain indifferent; they reflect on the problems of the city.

90

Urban Interventions in Moscow Alena Zaytseva

“If you can’t see progress in small things, there is no need to look for it in large”A.P. Chekhov. Boring story

Public space in Moscow today mirrors a growing diversity and intensity of public communi-cation: the tendency among the city’s inhabitants to participate more in ongoing urban and social processes. Urban interventions are evidence of this fact. People do not seem willing to wait for the government to solve issues anymore, as they are becoming more inclined to do so themselves.

The catalogue, being produced as a result of research, covers the variety of informal interven-tion, highlighting specific semantic gaps in Moscow urban culture. Using public space as a platform for highlighting personal ideas on how the city should work and what it should look like, small interventions cause big change in the urban atmosphere. The work of an “urban art partisan” becomes a part of the cityscape, interacts with people and apparently makes them reconsider some parts of their everyday lifestyles, behavior and values.

Informal urban intervention is a visualized statement in public space that is rooted in a personal sense of dissatisfaction with certain aspects of urban life. Residents of the city take up this cause in an effort to affect policy and minds and to participate in creating a picture of just how things should work in the city. Intervention is a tactical instrument that utilizes outdoor art in order to reshape the city's conditions and identity. The power of urban inter-ventions is the ability to focus an individual’s attention on something, shedding light on a topic that was previously unknown or unnoticed. Through this process, it is possible to push society to re-think some issues. Refreshing attitudes and re-focusing social optics, people can become be less indifferent and more devoted to their own city; this process makes them “active customers” who are involved in city development. Among the wide range of urban visual practices, which includes tagging, social activism, political protests, stylish lettering and murals, sensible urban intervention is a niche that is occupied mostly by young, well-educated locals. These urbanites do not remain indifferent; they reflect on the problems of the city.

91

governmental part ic ipation

movementhardware

people

Hardware is the physical framework of urban life. Comprised of roads, squares, public spaces, buildings and objects, infrastructure is the basic element of urban space. The environment naturally controls and shapes the model of human behavior. Moscow’s post-Soviet restrictive environment shapes local society. In turn, society influences the content of the city in such a way that today Moscow's urban atmosphere is neither attractive nor hostile for residents and newcomers. Urban interventions, which refresh urban content and endow city spaces with new significance and self-awareness, become a tactical instrument for shaping urban framework. The interventions succeed in marking focal points, making the environment less monotonous, obscuring annoying objects, highlighting the value of architectural heritage and creating spaces of remembrance that are an alternative to the traditional ones.

Movement concerns everything connected to transportation inside the city. Today, roads, parking lots and sidewalks are occupied, and Moscow is an urban space that is overcrowded by cars. People are pushed out of public spaces by noise and the poor ecological situation. Moreover, the lack of space makes the city unattractive for pedestrians. Without fundamental changes, the situation will only deteriorate, spiraling downward. The unattractiveness of the pedestrian lifestyle pushes more people to get behind the wheel, even for short distances, leading to more and more serious traffic jams and pollution, which renders the city even less attractive for pedestrians. Keeping this tendency in mind, civic initiatives directed to breaking this “spiral” are multiplying. Moscow lacks a cycling tradition, as much as infrastructure. The development of cycling as an alternative means of transportation relies on personal initiative: at present there is no special infrastructure and no sense that it is safe ride bicycles in the city. In spite of this, people every day promote cycling with their personal examples. Cycling tends to be associated with a careful and attentive attitude to the city, openness and eco-friendliness. In contradiction to this, motoring is becoming synonymous with egoism and stress, spurring even greater pollution. The current state of affairs provokes a situation where Moscow's urban society is divided into two conflicting camps.

The People. The residents of the city make up the human dimension, which includes interrelationships, connection with the urban environment, behavior and personal values. The life of most Moscow residents can be described as following the “home-work-home” route. In this mindset, the shopping mall is a “cultural” leisure activity, and individuals are moved through the key points of life in their personal automobile. The traffic jam has become a cultural phenomenon in Moscow. People do not know the city where they live. As a result, few people are interested in current problems, and in any event they are not involved in current city development because they cannot see beyond the current traffic jam that they are stuck in.

The urban atmosphere "mechanism" is determined by the inseparable interconnections of all its components. Even the tiniest change in any of the elements makes the entire system move. This is how urban atmosphere is developing. Every individual involved in urban intervention can affect the direction and development of the “mechanism” of urban culture. co

mm

unic

ation

invo

lvem

ent

values

behavior

cycling

automobilization

pedestrian

anti-

rout

iniz

ation

annoying objects

focal points

u r b a n atmosphere

remembrance

h

erita

ge

media reportages

g u e r r i l l ac y c l i n g

m a r k i n g

Moscow ‘09

x10Moscow ‘10

Urban atmosphere is the result of individual perception of the city as a whole, including urban hardware, movement in the city, the people themselves and urban culture--the essential manifestation of the afore-mentioned concept.

Urban atmosphere "mechanism"

x100Moscow ‘11

mass trendMoscow ‘12

92

governmental part ic ipation

movementhardware

people

Hardware is the physical framework of urban life. Comprised of roads, squares, public spaces, buildings and objects, infrastructure is the basic element of urban space. The environment naturally controls and shapes the model of human behavior. Moscow’s post-Soviet restrictive environment shapes local society. In turn, society influences the content of the city in such a way that today Moscow's urban atmosphere is neither attractive nor hostile for residents and newcomers. Urban interventions, which refresh urban content and endow city spaces with new significance and self-awareness, become a tactical instrument for shaping urban framework. The interventions succeed in marking focal points, making the environment less monotonous, obscuring annoying objects, highlighting the value of architectural heritage and creating spaces of remembrance that are an alternative to the traditional ones.

Movement concerns everything connected to transportation inside the city. Today, roads, parking lots and sidewalks are occupied, and Moscow is an urban space that is overcrowded by cars. People are pushed out of public spaces by noise and the poor ecological situation. Moreover, the lack of space makes the city unattractive for pedestrians. Without fundamental changes, the situation will only deteriorate, spiraling downward. The unattractiveness of the pedestrian lifestyle pushes more people to get behind the wheel, even for short distances, leading to more and more serious traffic jams and pollution, which renders the city even less attractive for pedestrians. Keeping this tendency in mind, civic initiatives directed to breaking this “spiral” are multiplying. Moscow lacks a cycling tradition, as much as infrastructure. The development of cycling as an alternative means of transportation relies on personal initiative: at present there is no special infrastructure and no sense that it is safe ride bicycles in the city. In spite of this, people every day promote cycling with their personal examples. Cycling tends to be associated with a careful and attentive attitude to the city, openness and eco-friendliness. In contradiction to this, motoring is becoming synonymous with egoism and stress, spurring even greater pollution. The current state of affairs provokes a situation where Moscow's urban society is divided into two conflicting camps.

The People. The residents of the city make up the human dimension, which includes interrelationships, connection with the urban environment, behavior and personal values. The life of most Moscow residents can be described as following the “home-work-home” route. In this mindset, the shopping mall is a “cultural” leisure activity, and individuals are moved through the key points of life in their personal automobile. The traffic jam has become a cultural phenomenon in Moscow. People do not know the city where they live. As a result, few people are interested in current problems, and in any event they are not involved in current city development because they cannot see beyond the current traffic jam that they are stuck in.

The urban atmosphere "mechanism" is determined by the inseparable interconnections of all its components. Even the tiniest change in any of the elements makes the entire system move. This is how urban atmosphere is developing. Every individual involved in urban intervention can affect the direction and development of the “mechanism” of urban culture. co

mm

unic

ation

invo

lvem

ent

values

behavior

cycling

automobilization

pedestrian

anti-

rout

iniz

ation

annoying objects

focal points

u r b a n atmosphere

remembrance

h

erita

ge

media reportages

g u e r r i l l ac y c l i n g

m a r k i n g

Moscow ‘09

x10Moscow ‘10

Urban atmosphere is the result of individual perception of the city as a whole, including urban hardware, movement in the city, the people themselves and urban culture--the essential manifestation of the afore-mentioned concept.

Urban atmosphere "mechanism"

x100Moscow ‘11

mass trendMoscow ‘12

93

Architectural heritage and culture of memory.Urban interventions highlight and emphasize the value of architectural heritage for the city and for every resident.The official culture of rememberance is stan-dardized. If it is a historical person, then he or she appears in the form of a bronze monument. If we are observing a victory in a war, then we receive a parade of military technique. Urban artists create an alternative. By moving the accent from the tank to the soldier, the artist creates something more humanistic, which is capable of eliciting emotional empathy.

Elimination of monotonyThe day-to-day route, or home-work-home, makes the urban environment merge into one routine. The appearance of unexpected objects in a habitual environment gives the spectator a chance to actually see the city and intensively experience it instead of just mindlessly roving his or her eyes over the surface.

Marking focal pointsMarking focal points functions to create an alternative way of navigating around the city. This practice fixates not just street names or house numbers, but defines “places of power”, or areas of the city where people gravitate that are notable for their energy and significance.

Annoying or unsightly objectsItems falling into this category include fences, air conditioners, advertisements, light-boxes and other "excess” objects found in the urban land-scape.

Hardware

94

Architectural heritage and culture of memory.Urban interventions highlight and emphasize the value of architectural heritage for the city and for every resident.The official culture of rememberance is stan-dardized. If it is a historical person, then he or she appears in the form of a bronze monument. If we are observing a victory in a war, then we receive a parade of military technique. Urban artists create an alternative. By moving the accent from the tank to the soldier, the artist creates something more humanistic, which is capable of eliciting emotional empathy.

Elimination of monotonyThe day-to-day route, or home-work-home, makes the urban environment merge into one routine. The appearance of unexpected objects in a habitual environment gives the spectator a chance to actually see the city and intensively experience it instead of just mindlessly roving his or her eyes over the surface.

Marking focal pointsMarking focal points functions to create an alternative way of navigating around the city. This practice fixates not just street names or house numbers, but defines “places of power”, or areas of the city where people gravitate that are notable for their energy and significance.

Annoying or unsightly objectsItems falling into this category include fences, air conditioners, advertisements, light-boxes and other "excess” objects found in the urban land-scape.

Hardware

95

Movement

The People

Values.Artists use urban interventions to make people rethink some issues, question the constraints of mass production, consumerism and capital-ism itself. They force people to question certain values and beliefs--to question themselves.

Cycling The number of people who use a bicycle not only as a recreational tool but as a means of personal transportation enlarges day by day. People are uniting and demanding that the city provide them with good conditions for cycling all over the city. This trend is a result of a great flip that Moscow society has made in the past three years and started with a tiny urban intervention made by one active person.

Proliferation of carsLack of parking lots and lots of cars improperly parked on sidewalks and pedestrian crossings result in common stress and pollution as a result of endless traffic jams. According to some, bad infrastructure and city management is to be blamed. But, from another perspective, the deci-sion to get behind the wheel is always a personal choice.

Communication.Establishing long lost connections between people is an instrument for evolving collective decisions about the future development of the city. "Togetherness" as a promoting power is something which urban art partisans are try-ing to launch at different levels, including in the pod'ezd, or entry hall, of a particular condomin-ium in a neighborhood, in the yard outside those apartment buildings, at the level of the entire neighborhood and, finally, at the level of the city itself. Collective action can qualitatively influence the city’s atmosphere.

96

Movement

The People

Values.Artists use urban interventions to make people rethink some issues, question the constraints of mass production, consumerism and capital-ism itself. They force people to question certain values and beliefs--to question themselves.

Cycling The number of people who use a bicycle not only as a recreational tool but as a means of personal transportation enlarges day by day. People are uniting and demanding that the city provide them with good conditions for cycling all over the city. This trend is a result of a great flip that Moscow society has made in the past three years and started with a tiny urban intervention made by one active person.

Proliferation of carsLack of parking lots and lots of cars improperly parked on sidewalks and pedestrian crossings result in common stress and pollution as a result of endless traffic jams. According to some, bad infrastructure and city management is to be blamed. But, from another perspective, the deci-sion to get behind the wheel is always a personal choice.

Communication.Establishing long lost connections between people is an instrument for evolving collective decisions about the future development of the city. "Togetherness" as a promoting power is something which urban art partisans are try-ing to launch at different levels, including in the pod'ezd, or entry hall, of a particular condomin-ium in a neighborhood, in the yard outside those apartment buildings, at the level of the entire neighborhood and, finally, at the level of the city itself. Collective action can qualitatively influence the city’s atmosphere.

97

People are staging urban interventions in Moscow to:

sharpen the focus on social, political, environmental issues

make people view the situation from another angle: remove monotony, moving from ignor-ing to noticing and reacting, rethink their attitudes

call on the public to take more responsibility: start self-organization, being conscious, demand reform

initiate civic involvement and communication between people, make people speak out

ridicule something: behavior of the authorities, consumerism, etc.

reclaim public spaces from cars, advertisements, annoying objects

endow the urban environment with new meaning: highlighting the value of historical heri-tage, creating alternative spaces for remembrance, rediscovering history, explaining the back-ground of things in the city, marking “places of power”

creating new trends in urban culture

BibliographyMcCormick, Carlo. Trespass. A History of Uncommissioned Urban Art. Berlin: Taschen, 2010.Klanten, R. Urban Interventions: Personal projects in public places. Berlin: Die Gestalten Verlag, 2010.Ponosov, Igor. Objects. Moscow, 2005.Ponosov, Igor. Objects 2. Moscow, 2007.Ponosov, Igor. Objects 3. Moscow, 2009.Reinking, Rik. Still on and non the wiser. Berlin: Ginko Press, 2008.Jakob, Kai. Street art in Berlin. Berlin: Jaron Verlag Gmbh, 2008

All photo materials used in this book belong to artists indicated in the left lower corner of each picture. Back cover quote is from advertising company “Think different”, Apple Inc., 1997. Image source: http://www.wopp.biz/images/05bc8bd315fa978b296150b70fb2ff1f.jpg

98

People are staging urban interventions in Moscow to:

sharpen the focus on social, political, environmental issues

make people view the situation from another angle: remove monotony, moving from ignor-ing to noticing and reacting, rethink their attitudes

call on the public to take more responsibility: start self-organization, being conscious, demand reform

initiate civic involvement and communication between people, make people speak out

ridicule something: behavior of the authorities, consumerism, etc.

reclaim public spaces from cars, advertisements, annoying objects

endow the urban environment with new meaning: highlighting the value of historical heri-tage, creating alternative spaces for remembrance, rediscovering history, explaining the back-ground of things in the city, marking “places of power”

creating new trends in urban culture

BibliographyMcCormick, Carlo. Trespass. A History of Uncommissioned Urban Art. Berlin: Taschen, 2010.Klanten, R. Urban Interventions: Personal projects in public places. Berlin: Die Gestalten Verlag, 2010.Ponosov, Igor. Objects. Moscow, 2005.Ponosov, Igor. Objects 2. Moscow, 2007.Ponosov, Igor. Objects 3. Moscow, 2009.Reinking, Rik. Still on and non the wiser. Berlin: Ginko Press, 2008.Jakob, Kai. Street art in Berlin. Berlin: Jaron Verlag Gmbh, 2008

All photo materials used in this book belong to artists indicated in the left lower corner of each picture. Back cover quote is from advertising company “Think different”, Apple Inc., 1997. Image source: http://www.wopp.biz/images/05bc8bd315fa978b296150b70fb2ff1f.jpg

99

Институт медиa, aрхитектуры и дизaйнa «Стрелкa» Берсеневскaя нaб., 14, стр. 5А Москвa, 119072, Россия www.strelka.com

Strelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design14, bldg. 5A, Bersenevskaya Emb. Moscow, 119072, Russiawww.strelka.com