|
(Western) Postmodern culture celebrates diversity,
so does landscape by definition. This explains the
extreme popularity of the term in the past decade.
According to prominent American landscape
architect James Corner, the all-encompassing
attention to landscape discipline and the
broadening of its agenda are due more specifically
to the “rise of environmentalism and global
ecological awareness”, “the growth of tourism and
the associated needs of regions to retain a sense of
unique identity”, and “the impact of massive urban
growth on urban areas”. (1) To respond to these
conditions, architecture, landscape, and urban
planning are gradually merging towards a shared
from of practice, shaping a complex discipline.
The definition of the term ‘landscape’ is itself
shifting beyond ‘the visible features of a territory’
to take in as well the ‘conflicting interaction
between human activity and the environment,
including physical, human, cultural, social, and
economic aspects’. (2) This is leading to a
proliferation of new concepts. Among these, two
have acquired particular relevance: the ‘third
landscape’ and ‘landscape urbanism’. The third
landscape has been formulated by French
landscape architect and thinker Gilles Clément and
is predominantly theoretical in scope. It refers to
abandoned terrains formed as a result of human
activity such as former industrial locations or
nature reserves; these are described as prime
areas for accumulating biological diversity. These
places of neglect and indecision constitute Earth's
genetic reservoir and are therefore of considerable
ecological value. (3)
Landscape urbanism belongs to the Anglo-Saxon
school and suggests specific operational modes. It
implies a type of urbanism that takes landscape as
a model, thus privileging processes over objects,
and “considers landscape rather than architecture
as a basic building block of contemporary
urbanism”. (4)
If landscape is about complexity, landscape
metaphor and landscape thinking have become
omnipresent also within architecture itself. Many
contemporary architects prefer to work with
complex conditions that tend to encompass
notions of built and open space, figure and
ground, inside and outside, often cancelling or
blurring the boundaries between the two. Among
the numerous examples of buildings that reflect
this design attitude probably the best known are
the Musée du quai Branly by Atelier Jean Nouvel,
OMA’s Kunsthal, and the Tate Modern by Herzog &
De Meuron.
Corresponding to the incredible amount of
discussion concerning landscape in the West is an
impressive amount of land transformation in
Russia, accompanied by a conceptual void
surrounding the term ‘landscape’. Indicative of the
current lack of interest in this argument is the fact
that most insightful texts about contemporary
Russian landscape are written by geographers or
anthropologists rather than architects and urban
planners. Such texts include studies by Vladimir
Kagansky, Boris Rodoman, and Vyacheslav
Glazychev. Some of these authors have been
consulted and involved in preparing this issue.
According to Vladimir Kagansky, during Soviet
times Russia’s land was viewed solely in terms of
productivity, thus simplifying the complex relations
that define the identity of a place. Soviet space
rather than landscape was mono-functional, often
reduced to a single objective such as growing
grain, extracting minerals, or producing fresh air,
where quantity and size were more important than
quality and diversity. Kagansky argues that the
territory of the USSR was a place of constant and
ambitious transformation, a gigantic construction
site, the ruin of which Russians still inhabit. (To
use the term coined by Gilles Clément, Russia
could be described as the world’s largest reserve
of ‘the third landscape’.)
Very few projects today pose the question of the
potential value of this ‘ruin’ or attempt to define
appropriate operational modes for it. Architecture
is often conceived as totally disconnected from
surrounding conditions; it is a discipline in which
buildings just happen to stand on the ground. The
dominant practice is either to neglect open space
or to formally reference the most popular
landscape projects from the West. Combined, this
often produces an alienating environment and
segregation.
If contemporary Russian architects are clearly
attempting to redefine their agenda concerning the
design and construction of buildings (and
positioning themselves in a clear break with Soviet
tradition), the same cannot be said when it comes
to design of open space. It seems there is hardly
any agenda. And this is a worrying fact, given the
intimidating amount of undefined open space the
country possesses both within and outside its
cities.
This issue collects definitions of the Russian
landscape, both from the theoretical and practical
perspectives, in a first attempt to define its
qualities and design potential.
(1) J. Corner, Terra Fluxus, in The Landscape Urbanism Reader, New York:
Princeton Architectural Press, 2005, p. 23.
(2) P. Nicolin, F. Repishti, Dictionary of Today's Landscape Designers, Milan:
Skira, p. 11.
(3) See in detail: Pi17, p. 151–156.
(4) C.Waldheim, A Reference Manifesto, in The Landscape Urbanism Reader, New
York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005, p. 11.
Ekaterina Golovatyuk,
guest editor
CONTENTS
|
