In their article 'Notes around the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism' the American theoreticians Robert Somol and Sarah Whiting put forward an approach they call 'cool' (see Pi13). Borrowing terminology used by Marshall McLuhan, they set this approach against a 'hot' version of architecture. The 'cool' approach does not insist on clarity, universality, ornormativeness of statement. Its language is not only not importunate, but is also aimed at getting users and viewers to participate. An example of such an approach in the field of communication for McLuhan was television, as opposed to cinema. There were, of course, no digital media at the time, but the latter are an even better illustration of the essence of'cool' media. And not just because of their interactive nature, but also because they can be integrated into the most diverse contexts. The long reach of the 'cool' media derives from the way they link up with various devices characterized not just by multi-functionality, but by a tendency towards miniaturization as well. The connection between 'cool' and miniature is only to be expected. Like 'cool' architecture, the 'cool' media are oriented not on a static and monolithic user's environment, but on a fluid socium interwoven from a large number of micro-communities. This explains the fact that the key size as far as the 'cool' approach is concerned could be denoted as S, if not XS. Similar thoughts are to found in Andrea Branzi's concept of 'a weak and diffuse Modernity'. According to the founder of Archizoom, the force and integrity characteristic of Modernism will give way to flexible forms of understanding and assimilating space, and megaprojects and macroeconomics will be replaced by microeconomics, which functions, to use a metaphor from electronics, using 'weak currents' and 'autonomous energy sources'. Small structures are a kind of gadget that has much in common with micro-devices of a technical kind. They are 'smart', since they rely upon intellectual effort to extract maximum effect from a minimum of resources. They are shaped by the logic of saving-saving of space, time, and resources. 'Small stuff' is a field that's open to experimentation. Finally, these structures are aimed not at contemplation, but at activity. Like other gadgets, they 'play a part' in assimilating the most inhospitable places. In Russian architecture, however, small structures remain a marginal genre. One factor that may bring change is effective implementation of the national project 'Affordable and Comfortable Housing'. It is a good sign that discussion of the project has focused on mass construction of low buildings, high-density mid-height development, and construction of blocks of apartments for letting- i.e. everything that could lead to a diminishment if not of the building itself, then of its constituent parts, which should conform to the principle of the 'optimal minimum'. All this is good reason for interest in 'small stuff. The principal characteristics of this kind of architecture - its rational economy and innovativeness -make it a much-needed ferment for evolution within the architectural profession, a testing ground for new ideas. Ideas that have a much greater chance of being needed if victory goes to the approach which American theoreticians call 'cool'.

Alexei Muratov. editor-in-chief.

• latest issue
• archive