Maria Khozina - Average Place

Maria Khozina

Master of Architecture

Academy of Architecture, Amsterdam

September 2021 - April 2023

Mentor: Marc Schoonderbeek

Committee:

Rick ten Doeschate, Michelle Provoost, Arna Mačkić

Average place

Agency of architecture in the autoritorian state

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

John Donne

“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

Viktor E. Frankl

In memory of my father, who always encouraged me to think broadly.

Contents

This project is an investigation into the role of an architect and language of architecture in an authoritarian state.

How architects can use their skills and knowledge to contribute to social change, and what role can archtecture play in the political agenda?

While “Average place” is a political issue, it is also one that has personal consequences and implications. It is about grief, the feeling of home and belonging lost. It is about a loss of understanding of one’s role as a citizen and as an architect within their homeland.

Through this project, the architect wants to explore how they can engender positive change by using their craft and professional role.

The project demonstrates how architecture can be a tool for expressing feelings and spreading ideas in order to create positive change in people’s lives.

Grief can be a powerful motivator, and through this project I was reminded of the importance of the community and the power of creative expression to make a difference.

Manifesto

Propaganda

While the specific definitions may vary, they all generally refer to the use of communication and manipulation to influence public opinion and behaviour in favour of a particular cause, group, or ideology.

Propaganda of the Russian State does not carry the function of causing an issue. It doesn’t expect you to act, it loves unconditionally. Propaganda wields a subtler influence than we may imagine. It speaks not to the mind but to the heart, seducing it with unbridled love. Its power lies not in provoking action, but in shaping perception.

In the 1930s, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis identified a variety of propaganda techniques that were commonly used in newspapers and on the radio, mass media of that period. Name-calling is a spell that smears ill repute on individuals or groups, seeking to discredit and incite fear. Glittering generalities, on the other hand, weave a web of positive words and ideas, creating a beguiling image of a

product, an idea, or an individual. Bandwagon, harnesses our need for belonging, presenting a popular idea as the norm to entice us to follow. It doesn’t demand action, but conformity. Then there is card-stacking, a game of manipulation, where only one side of an argument is laid out, omitting any contradicting facts. This creates a lopsided view and subtly nudges opinion in one direction, without necessarily requiring action. Propaganda gives you a sense of belonging without participation.

I see a great problem of Russian society in this very unwillingness to question, to reason, to think critically.

Throughout its history, Russia has experienced periods of authoritarian rule and political oppression, which may have led to a culture of conformity and distrust of authority. The Russian government has been known to tightly control media and limit access to information, which limits the exposure of Russian citizens to diverse perspectives and ideas. The Russian education system has been criticized for being overly rote and focused on mem-

orization rather than critical thinking skills.

This legacy may contribute to a reluctance to question authority or challenge the status quo, and a preference for conformism over individualism. A poor familiarity with alternative viewpoints, and a lack of ability or willingness to question authority, can lead to a deficiency in critical thinking skills.

Art

Art, on contrary to propaganda, encourages a person to think. Art allows a person to remain human, to think about something, to make some decisions, including in politics.

Art has the power to encourage critical thinking and inspire reflection, and it can be a powerful tool for individual expression and political dissent. However, it is also true that art has been co-opted by governments and other entities as a form of propaganda but despite that fact, it remains an important form of individual expression and a means of promoting critical thinking and reflection.

Architecture

Architecture is a political art.

Architecture can be seen as an expression of power and control, as it often involves large financial investments and decisions about the use and allocation of physical space. Buildings can also be seen as tools of exclusion and inclusion, as they define physical space and determine who has access to it. Design can either promote social inclusion and accessibility or perpetuate social exclusion and inequality. Architects and designers may be dependent on clients who have specific political agendas, such as governments or corporations. This can influence the design of buildings and public spaces and can have implications for the use and allocation of physical space.

Me as an architect

As a citizen of Russia, as an architect from Russia, I find myself in time of great need for the new reference points and vision for the future. It is imperative that we find ways to connect with one both as individuals and as society. Through the art of spatial practices, we can begin to

establish new points of reference for solidarity and encourage the free coexistence of our communities.

I consider it, to look for new in architecture, to change the perception of the acting forces in the profession, to broaden the spectrum of influence of architecture. The impossibility of compromise today gives us a unique opportunity to look differently at established practices and re-evaluate them.

To achieve this, we must look beyond the traditional bounds of architecture and explore new horizons. Only by broadening the spectrum of architectural influence and strengthening cross-disciplinary collaboration can we truly make a meaningful impact. While challenges we face today may seem insurmountable, they also present us with an unique opportunity to chart a new path forward.

Design tool

Language describes reality. It is one of the tools of architecture. And although a word can be forbid-

den, in architecture it can take on a new meaning. The right word is like the right proportion of a window.

I, as an architect, am the catalyst of doubt myself. My doubt provides for the search for the correct words, the same as a search for the best proportion or detail of a building.

The architecture of the project is expressed in design principles. The elements that appeared or were implemented by the architect to create these principles (conversation, letter, sketch, critique, scheme, word, etc.) are equal parts of the project as they allow to define necessary actions in the principals and their order.

The design principles allow a project to go from the verbalization of a problem to its formalization. The design of an architectural machine should be based on the parameters created by the architect; they are intended to be a universal language for creating any type of political machine.

Architectural Machine

By integrating into one system the elements of the plastic arts, the utilitarian nature of architecture, and the constraints in which the architect’s work is carried out, I produce - the Architectural Machine.

Machines are one of the fundamental elements in architecture. Vitruvius, saw machines as tools to aid in the construction of buildings. Aureli, believed that machines should be integrated into the very fabric of a building itself. Leonardo da Vinci was an architect who believed in the potential of machines to revolutionize the field of architecture. He saw machines as means of exploring new forms and structures. Francesco Colonna, the author of Poliphili Hypnerotomachia, described a fantastical machine that could create entire buildings out of thin air. In the 18th century, Giovanni Battista Piranesi created intricate etchings of imaginary machines and structures that blurred the line between architecture and engineering.

In the early 20th century, architects

like Auguste Perret and Le Corbusier embraced the potential of machines to streamline construction and create efficient, functional buildings.

In my case, the machine is the formal embodiment of a social issue of concern to the architect. I, as the playwright of my work, can choose which machine to design by me. I create, a Machine of Political.

Machines address the relationship between architecture and power. There are no definitive answers to that question, only attempts to try to explore that relationship. Building in ambiguities will only ‘trigger’ one’s desire to be involved in the workings of the machines. A certain curiosity is to be brought forward in the architecture to ensure in this participatory act. It is therefore also a play with conventions and cliché, though these would never be fully confirmed.

Context

Me as an architect

What is the role of the architect in the authoritarian state?

Does architecture have an agency in an authoritarian state?

My name is Masha and I am from Russia. I have lived in Moscow all my life. I adore my home. I like my country, but unfortunately not the people who run it. I don’t agree with either the foreign or domestic policy of the ruling parties. Despite living a fulfilling and exciting life in the fast-paced metropolis of Moscow, I have always been haunted by a lingering sense of apprehension for my future and the future of my country

I think when you live in a country like Russia, you have to have a backup plan in case something happens that is a red line for you. For me, studying at the Academy was that plan. It allowed me to hone my skills as an architect while also providing a safety net in the event of a crisis. Unfortunately, my red line and that very ‘eventuality’ happened in February 2022.

I didn’t believe a full scale war was possible. I didn’t believe and neither did most of my acquaintances, people whose opinion I listened to, experts from journalists to political scientists, I didn’t want to believe, we didn’t want to believe.

In February 22, I was in the middle of working on my final project at the Academy, I was going to do a project in Moscow, exploring the potential of architecture for latent protest. The beginning of the invasion made me rethink some aspects of my work. I had new, different questions. Russians, who have been in opposition to Putin and his government since the beginning of the war, have several basic feelings: shame, pain, frustration, and rage. And while Ukraine has gained a new sense of statehood, Russia’s future is now under great question. In seeking answers to at least some of my questions, I turned to my professional spectrum. I didn’t understand what I, as an architect, a person who creates, can do in a country which destroys. What could be the role of architecture in an authoritarian state?

This work is not about traditional design methods, it’s about finding a different language of architecture, a language that can be used to explore the role of architecture and power, and to define my role as an architect.

Unfree country

In 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Union brought a wave of hope and optimism to Russia. The new government was committed to building a democratic society, with free elections, independent media, and a market economy. Boris Yeltsin was elected as Russia’s first president in 1991, and under his leadership, the country took important steps towards democratization. New laws were enacted to protect human rights, and private businesses were allowed to flourish.

However, by the late 1990s, the situation began to change. Corruption was rampant, and the government seemed unable to address the country’s economic problems. In 1999, Yeltsin resigned, and Vladimir Putin, a former KGB agent, became the new president. Putin promised to restore order and stability to Russia, and at first, he was popular. He launched a crackdown on organized crime and terrorism, and the economy began to improve. But over time, his government became increasingly authoritarian.

Media outlets critical of the government were shut down, and journalists who dared to speak out against Putin were harassed or even killed. The opposition parties were either co-opted or banned. Putin’s government passed laws restricting civil liberties, and the courts became increasingly subservient to the executive branch.

In 2011 and 2012, the first large-scale protests erupted in Russia, fueled by accusations of electoral fraud in the parliamentary and presidential elections, against the backdrop of Putin’s presidential nomination after Medvedev’s term ends. Putin responded with a crackdown on civil society and the opposition, passing laws that restricted protests, NGOs, and online activity.

In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, triggering a conflict with Ukraine. The annexation was followed by sanctions from the international community and a rise in nationalist sentiment within Russia.

From 2014 to 2018, the government launched a series of trials against opposition figures, including Alexei Navalny, who was sentenced to multiple prison terms on politically motivated charges, and Boris Nemtsov, who was shot in the back on a bridge 100 metres from the Kremlin.

In 2018, Putin was re-elected as the president in an election widely criticized as neither free nor fair. The government continued its crackdown on dissent, and there were reports of the widespread election fraud.

The peaceful assemblies continued to be suppressed, with mass detentions and criminal and administrative prosecution of organisers and participants. The dissemination of information about uncoordinated rallies is also restricted and the approval procedure remains unbalanced and disproportionately complicated

In 2019, the government introduced a remote electronic voting system for several regions of the country. This system severely limits observer control, increases the likelihood of data leakage, and, according to some experts, makes it easier for the authorities to falsify elections.

In 2020 and 2021, Russia passed new laws that further restricted free speech, political activity, and online privacy. The Russian constitution was amended in 2020, one of the main clauses of which, will allow Putin to be in power until 2036. These are the years of the first the poisoning and then the arrest of Alexei Navalny. The beginnings of the blossoming of the law on foreign agents and extremely violent detentions and arrests at protests against the regime, that were the years when the government used the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to impose new restrictions on public gatherings and protests.

Overall, the past decade has seen a steady erosion of democratic institutions and civil liberties in Russia, with the government consolidating power and suppressing dissent. While there are still some opposition voices and civil society organizations operating in the country, their ability to affect change is limited, and the prospects for a return to democracy in Russia remain uncertain.

2022 marks Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Everything before that moment

catastrophe. Nevertheless, especially now one can clearly see all the decisions the government has made over the last decade to stupefy citizens with the state propaganda.

Throughout 2022 about half a million Russians left they country; this year was a record for the number of new articles in the Russian Criminal Code; 20,467 detentions on political grounds were made; 10 organizations were declared extremist by Russian courts; at least 20 people were detained on suspicion of treason; 10-11 million people lost the right to be elected; 378 individuals, organizations and associations were recognized as “foreign agents”; 176 individuals and organizations were prosecuted for their anti-war position; 6 civil society organizations were liquidated; 22 obviously repressive new laws were adopted; 26 mass media outlets were fined for spreading fake news about the Russian military; for the sake of military censorship over 9000 websites were blocked, including all the media outlets which expressed different opinions from the official resources.

At the end of 2022, Russia was almost excluded from the global context. With nine sanctions packages imposed on it Russia became the leader in terms of imposed sanctions.

In just a few short decades, Russia has gone from a country with promising democratic prospects to an authoritarian state excluded from the global context.

Since the late 2000s, dissatisfaction with Russia’s ruling parties has been steadily growing. It reached a peak during the 2012 presidential election when Vladimir Putin’s was elected president again, after a one term break of his protégé, Dmitry Medvedev. This move was widely viewed as a spurious attempt to circumvent the country’s term limits.

In the years that followed, the Russian government steadily increased its control over the minds and actions of the population, restricting and dictating their opinions. Despite resistance attempts, the government’s intimidation tactics, including the deployment of Rosgvardeys (National Guard of Russia) and real prison sentences for expressing opinions, prevented protest movement from achieving its goals.

Timeline 1

The development of state control, repression and the abolition of opposition, The Russian Federation

The timeline of protests in Russia over the past decade shows a clear increase in both the frequency and the size of demonstrations. However, the government’s repression of dissent has prevented these movements from gaining momentum and achieving real change.

As the government continues to tighten its grip, it remains to be seen how much longer the population will tolerate their actions. It is clear, however, that seeds of dissatisfaction with ruling parties have been sown and are unlikely to go away anytime soon.

Detentions at the protest rallies

Criminal cases in the wake of protest actions

Bolotnaya Square case, 2012

He Is Not Dimon to You, 2017

Ingush case, 2019

Moscow case, 2019

Vladikavkaz case, 2020

Palace case, 2021

Anti-war case, 2022

Anti-war case, 2022

Moscow and Saint Petersburg All Russia

Increase in the number of detainees at solitary pickets (data to 2020)

2020(january-june)

A solitary picket is the only form of public action that, according to Russian law, does not need to be notified in advance to the authorities. Nevertheless, detentions of participants of such actions are not uncommon, and in 2020 this problem has reached new proportions.

Detentions at solitary pickets in Moscow 2012-2020

number of detainees

number of detainees

Saint Petersburg Moscow

In the 2000s, Russia experienced a promising era of growth and development, breaking away from the past characterized by oligarchs, side deals, and shady privatizations. This period saw the rise of massive IPOs and the growth of supermarket and telecom chains, resulting in the Russian economy’s impressive 10% annual growth.

At the same time, in August 1999, Russia launched the Second War in Chechnya, followed by a series of large explosions in Russian cities, including Moscow, resulting in deaths of over 300 people. Putin, who was the prime minister at the time, blamed Chechen terrorists for the attacks, although some suspected that the FSB may have been involved. Regardless, Putin’s response significantly boosted his popularity, and he was elected president less than a year late.

Timeline 2

Correlation between the growth of regressions and cultural and economic developments, The Russian Federation

In the mid-2000s, Russia experienced its wealthiest period. Moscow became a cool, modern European capital, and people had a chance to travel and even take weekend trips to European cities. However, this prosperity was matched by the Kremlin’s deception, as they appointed a fake president, Dmitry Medvedev, who seemed like a modernizer but was merely a puppet. The Kremlin’s trick was eventually revealed when in 2011 Medvedev announced that he was stepping down to make way for Putin’s return to power. This deceit angered the people, and in December of 2011, when the Kremlin brazenly rectified parliamentary elections, it sparked protests on the streets.

The key word during these protests was “Dignity,” as people demanded choices and a say in their government. The rallies grew from 5000 to 50000 to 100000 people, eventually moving to Bolotnaya Square, an island on the Moscow river, just across from the Kremlin. Despite the police presence, the atmosphere was not fearful

or violent. At that time it felt like the people were more powerful than the authorities because people controlled the narrative of the media, which was liberal and oppositional. However, the Kremlin was smarter than the liberals thought, waiting for the right moment to regain control.

In March 2012, Putin returned to the Kremlin as the president, and the people protested his return. This time, however, the protests turned violent, and the police responded with force. After Putin’s return to power, prosecutors went after the Bolotnaya Square protestors, putting people in jail for participating in the rallies. This was when the protests started to feel dangerous, and the hope began to fade, replaced by anger and a sense of loss.

The shooting of Boris Nemtsov, the main Russian opposition leader at the time, on February 27, 2015, on the bridge across the Kremlin, marked one of the turning points. It made people realize how well an authoritarian state could work. You, as a person, felt that you could do whatever, work, party, create a business but don’t bother yourself with politics.

Emigration from Russia by years

Figures below appear important to illustrate the scale of the phenomenon

Total

The estimate by the authors of the study based on data from the Federal State Statistics Service and the host states

By 2018, Moscow became a city of landscape parks, cycling lines, and public wi-fi, and it felt like the best place in the world to live. Cool districts, job opportunities, trendy places, express delivery and the best services from tech to beauty. It was possible to squeeze in a think “maybe it is not so bad”, but not for very long. In 2018, Putin was re-elected for the fourth term as thee president, but Bolotnaya Square remained quiet. However, the increased aggression from the riot police at protests, along with greater control and real consequences for speaking out, made people feel like the wall separating them from state repression was getting thinner and thinner.

On the morning of February 24, 2022, everything changed. Russia was plunged into a full-scale war, and the creative class that had once thrived in the country was suddenly deemed irrelevant. The wall that had once separated the people from state repression had crumbled, leaving many vulnerable to the whims of those in power.

Legislation on “foreign agents” Amendments and application practice in 2022 176 individuals, organizations and associations were recognized as “foreign agents” in 2022 Legal

Number and type of undesirable organizations by years

Detentions at public events

Breakdown of share consistency data, 2017-2019

agreed not agreed

Detentions at public events

Breakdown of data by topic, 2017-2019

Crimea migration legislation

Ukraine education against torture

LGBT healthcare

antifa

nationalist agenda

freedom of assembly ecology

dwelling urbanistic gender rights

freedom of speech

narrowly economic requirements foreign policy

other political prisoners

corruption against authority elections

That day The War

On February 24th, Russia underwent a sudden shift towards authoritarianism, which had been a concern for many years. But suddenly, literally one night our worst fear became a reality. Work, that creative class had been doing these years to improve the country, became meaningless overnight. Even more, we questioned, whether we had unwittingly contributed to this system’s growth.

The nightmarish change left free-thinking Russians feeling like outsiders in their own country, which is precisely what the Kremlin wanted. Putin encouraging people to leave, resulted in the biggest brain drain from Russia since the Bolshevik revolution. Some people stayed to keep the bright hope of life in Russia alive.

The situation is too overwhelming to express solely through grief, so I decided to channel my emotions into something useful. As an architect, I believe that our field has the power to create meaning-

ful visualizations that can communicate complex emotions and ideas.

However, when a country is in a state of destruction, it can be difficult to know what is truly meaningful. How can we create something that speaks to the heart of a nation in turmoil? How can we use architecture to make a positive impact when so much has been lost?

As an architect, I have embarked on a project that delves into the complex relationship between architecture and power within authoritarian states.

While focus will be on the contemporary Russia, the project aims to offer valuable insights that can benefit architects in other authoritarian countries facing similar challenges. Although it does not provide definitive answers, it seeks to explore issues to highlight possible solutions.

Problematics

Looking for reasons

To truly understand the profound and basic horrors of war and how Russian people react to it, I knew that I needed to delve deeply into the issue. I focused on investigating the reasons behind the acceptance of this destructive conflict and exploring the various reactions, attitudes, and dynamics of opinion that emerged in the first few months of the active invasion.

Through extensive analysis and personal experience of living through the catastrophic events unfolding in my country, I have come to form two major questions that continue to drive my research.

I wanted to investigate reasons behind acceptance of a destructive war by people whose memories of World War II are still fresh. What leads to this acceptance? Do all these people truly support the war, or are they indifferent to it? Are they fully aware of their decisions, or is something

else taking all the focus away from their lives? Are people genuinely supportive of the war, or is it indifference or lack of awareness that is leading to their acceptance?

Also, I reflect on my role as an architect in a country at war. What an architect, a person who creates and often works closely with state institutions, can do in a country that destroys? Is there any way to put professional knowledge to good use?

Architecture is a powerful medium that reflects the values, beliefs, and aspirations of a society. However, in authoritarian states where the government controls much of the media and public expression, can architecture become a hidden tool? If so, what type of reflection can we use it for?

In the beginning of the war, polls conducted by VTsIOM, the Russian government affiliate, and Levada Centre, an independent sociological research organisation, indicated that 70-80% of Russians were in favor of the war. However, it is important to look beyond these figures to understand the dynamics of what is happening.

To understand what is going on, one should follow the dynamics of what is happening, and it is possible to trace it back to situations that are already familiar, but war is not a predictable situation. We do not understand what public opinion is during a war. Therefore it is necessary to collect data to be able to make a complete assessment. Also, the way questions are phrased can significantly impact responses, often the question may contain the answer in itself or provoke you to choose the right option.

Support of the war, 2022-2023, % of respondents

Whether or not you personally support the actions of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine % of respondents

Further surveys by various sociologists reveal that 60-80% of Russians are clearly in favor of the war, while 20-40% are against it, with a high percentage of no answers. Here we should return to the question of dynamics. Researchers from the independent Chronicle Project who asked their respondents additional controlling questions about their attitude towards Russian aggression, succeeded in revealing that in addition to the “declarative majority” of support (60%), there is another majority - the “non-resistance majority” to the war (50-52%). The latter include both those who avoid answering the direct question about support for the war, and those who declare support, but who in other answers do not support the decisions and beliefs which are being held.

Are you following the situation in Ukraine?

Very carefully Quite carefully Without attention I don’t follow Haven’t heard about it

The “majority of non-resistance” is the most concerning group as they allows the pro-war minority (35-40%) to confidently dominate the public sphere, they appear unwilling or unaware that they have a choice.

Based on my personal experience, I believe that the social analysis of the Chronicle project provides an accurate reflection of public opinion in the country. While individuals who hold a clear pro-war stance have raised numerous inquiries to me, it is the cohort of skeptics that causes me greater concern and heightened questioning.

Their dissent and grievances are not represented in the public sphere. As a result, the opinion of about

Two-level clustering: declarative and “meaningful” support for war, February 2023 % of respondents

38% of supporters of the war and 10% of its opponents is represented in this sphere. That is, the number of convinced supporters of the war is approximately four times greater than the number of its convinced opponents. This corresponds exactly to the widespread and superficial, though not incorrect, notion that 80% of Russians support the war.

Meanwhile, support for the war is the only officially acceptable position in Russia, while non-support is stigmatised and even criminalised if expressed publicly.

Do you personally support or not the actions of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine? in % respondents for each age group, December 2022

Do you personally support or not the actions of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine? in % respondents by information sources trusted by respondents, December 2022

Majority of non-resistance

Looking for reasons

“I can’t understand why people in Russia are silent!” - this scream could be read in hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian posts in the first weeks of the war. “Do they really support this? They don’t care?”

And while I could understand why people didn’t speak out and protest openly, I couldn’t understand how most Russians could support the war. It seemed to me that now everyone would be thinking about it.

From opinion polls, data analysis, interviews, and personal observations, I discovered groups of people whose attitudes, or lack thereof, interested me the most.

This is basically the “majority of non-resistance” which includes: people who find it difficult to form an opinion on the war, those who claim to support it but

subscribe to a “normative” discourse that mostly does not suit their preferences, those who claim to support it but are not inwardly sympathetic to it, and people who only speak in shorthand phrases imposed by the state propaganda.

Apart from that, I am interested in people who have chosen a position of complete obedience to the decisions of the state, and who often say “they know better at the top”, “we are small people” and other similar phrases. It is as if this group doesn’t feel they have the right to have their own opinion on such, as they say, “big issues”. Where dthis attitude comes from?

As can be seen in the timeline, both modern Russia and the Soviet Union cannot boast of frequent changes of power. And yet The constant turnover of power is important in any democratic society because it helps to prevent the consolidation of power in the hands of a few individuals or political parties. This turnover ensures that different perspectives and ideas are represented in government and that no one group becomes too powerful and entrenched.

When there is no turnover of power, it can lead to issues when leaders who remain in power for extended periods of time may become increasingly authoritarian and corrupt, seeking to maintain their power at all costs. Also, it can be difficult for new ideas and approaches to emerge. The same individuals or parties remain

Timeline 3

Turnover of the government, The Soviet Union and The Russian Federation

in power, and there may be little incentive to innovate or make changes. This can lead to a lack of progress and development in society.

For the longest time, the Soviet Union was ruled by two men, Stalin and Brezhnev. Joseph Stalin established a totalitarian regime that suppressed all political opposition and dissent. Under Stalin’s rule, millions of people were killed, imprisoned, or sent to labor camps in the infamous Gulag system. The Soviet government also imposed strict censorship, control over media, and indoctrination through propaganda. The legacy of Stalin’s repressive regime had a lasting impact on the mentality of Soviet citizens, making them afraid to express their opinions openly and distrustful of the government.

Living under communism had a profound impact on the mentality of Soviet citizens. The lack of political freedom, censorship, and propaganda meant that people were unable to express their opinions openly or think critically about the government’s policies. The experience of living under Stalin’s repressive regime had a lasting impact on the mentality of Soviet citizens, making them fearful and distrustful of the government. Leonid Brezhnev, who succeeded Nikita Khrushchev as the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was not a great politician, and he could hardly be called a leader at all. Brezhnev’s rule was characterized by stagnation and a lack of political and economic reforms, which led to a sense of apathy and resignation among Soviet citizens.

At the same time, Mikhail Gorbachev, who was in power from 1985 to 1991, attempted to reform the Soviet system through his policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring). Gorbachev’s reforms led Timeline 4

The prevailing mood in the country, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation

to an increase in political freedom and a relaxation of censorship. However, they also led to social and economic instability, which contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Vladimir Putin, who came to power in 2000, has been criticized for his repressive policies and crackdowns on political opposition. Putin has also been accused of human rights abuses, including the persecution of journalists, activists, and members of the LGBTQ+ community. Putin’s leadership has led to a sense of disillusionment among many Russians and a lack of trust in the government.Living under communism had a profound impact on the mentality of Soviet citizens. The lack of political freedom, censorship, and propaganda meant that people were unable to express their opinions openly or think critically about the government’s policies. The experience of living under Stalin’s repressive regime had a lasting impact on the mentality of Soviet citizens, making them fearful and distrustful of the government.

During the Soviet era, the government exerted tight control over the media, allowing only official news and propaganda to be broadcast to the public. The lack of access to alternative sources of information meant that many Soviet citizens were unable to challenge the government’s narrative. Any material critical of the Soviet system or its leaders was heavily censored.

International exchange was also limited, both in terms of travel and information, contributing to a sense of mistrust and suspicion among Soviet citizens towards the outside world.

Timeline 5

Limiting Access to Information and International Exchange, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation

In the 1980s, the Soviet government began to loosen its controls on the media, leading to a period of cultural and intellectual growth known as the “Thaw.” This period was marked by the emergence of new cultural figures and a greater openness to outside influences.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia experienced a period of greater openness, both in terms of access to information and international exchange. Borders were opened, and the media became more diverse, with new independent newspapers and television channels emerging. The internet also became more widely available, providing access to a wealth of information and alternative viewpoints.

However, the crisis in the 1990s, marked by hyperinflation and rapid changes in living standards, had a profound impact on the mentality of Russians. Many struggled to make ends meet and became disillusioned with the government’s ability to manage the economy. Corruption was rampant, and many people felt that the government was not working in their best interests.

The economic growth of the 2000s brought some relief to Russians, but it also led to increased corruption and inequality. Putin’s government has been accused of enriching a group of oligarchs at the expense of the rest of the population. The lack of political freedom and the government’s repression of political opposition have led to a sense of resignation and cynicism among many Russians.

Data 6

Press Freedom Index, 2021

Since the late 2000s, the Russian government has tightened its control over the media and limited access to information. Putin’s government has been accused of using censorship and propaganda to control the narrative and suppress dissent. The government has also restricted access to the internet and cracked down on social media platforms. Additionally, the government has limited international exchange, particularly in terms of political and cultural exchange, contributing to a sense of isolationism among many Russians.

Good Situation

Satisfactory situation

Noticeable problems

Difficult situation

Very serious situation

Not classified

Why?

Reasons

Presence of doubt and critical thinking

After the analysis, we concluded that one of the fundamental, underlying problems of people raised up in Russia is a lack of critical thinking. It is a complex issue that can be attributed to several factors.

The systematic propaganda of the Russian government plays a significant role in shaping public opinion and limiting citizens’ perspectives. This propaganda promotes a particular narrative that reinforces the government’s power and suppresses alternative views. The Soviet era’s legacy of repression, coupled with communist and socialist ideologies, created a culture where conforming to the government’s directives without questioning them was expected.

The generation now making decisions has grown up with limited access to the global pool of information. The exchange of knowledge between countries during the Soviet times was tightly controlled and restricted, which could not positively influence the development of a broad outlook, which is one of the keys to having a healthy critical mind.

In Russia there is a deep-seated cultural belief in the importance of strong leadership and centralized decision-making. During the Soviet era, the government promoted the idea of a strong and unified state, and citizens were taught to prioritize the interests of the collective over their own individual interests.

In the post-Soviet era, the transition to democracy and market capitalism has been combined with political instability, economic turmoil and widespread corruption. This has led to a sense of frustration among the population and a belief that stability and strong leadership are more important than individual freedoms and rights. In many ways, Putin has won the love of the population by “pulling the country out” of that instability, which has only confirmed people’s view that “they know better at the top”.

These historical and contemporary factors have contributed to a culture in which many Russians view the government as the ultimate authority and are reluctant to question its decisions.

Role of an architect

Looking for reasons. What?

Architecture has always been more than just the design of buildings. It is a powerful medium that reflects the values, beliefs, and aspirations of a society. In authoritarian states, where the government controls much of the media and public expression, architecture can become a hidden tool for the expression of dissenting opinions.

I watch as my country flattens other people’s houses, destroys urban network, ruin lives. With the start of the full-scale invasion I have lost all sense of why and what I, as an architect, can create in a country that destroys.

There are many ways an architect can use his professional skills in opposition to the state. We can design buildings that subtly undermine official narratives or buildings that meet the needs of communities marginalised by the state, create public spaces that promote free expression and

debate and much more, but all this has lost all meaning for me when I look at Mariupol, a city the size of Milan, which my government has basically razed to the ground.

I wish that my profession would help me to create and feel somehow useful to those people of my country who are now grieving with me. I have many architect friends who stayed in Moscow, they want to do something useful. For myself, for them, and for all architects in similar circumstances, I decided to do this project.

I’m trying to figure out how architecture can be means of confrontation against the authoritarian state and the problems I care about. I would like to believe that we can make a difference and make a change, even if in very small, imperceptible, but important steps.

Architecture has been used as a tool of state power throughout history, serving as means to convey and legitimize political ideologies, project authority, and control public space. The use of architecture as means of vertical communication between the state and its citizens is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, reflecting the varied ways in which architecture can be used to project and reinforce political power.

The power of architecture lies in its ability to serve as a powerful symbol of a state’s identity, values, and power. Monuments, palaces, and government buildings are often designed to convey a sense of grandeur and power, reinforcing the legitimacy of the ruling regime. Such buildings often serve as a physical manifestation of the state’s power, projecting an image of strength and authority to both visitors and citizens. However, architecture can also be used to control and regulate public space, making it difficult or impossi-

Timeline 7

Architecture and Power, Worldwide

ble for citizens to engage in dissent or protest. Buildings and urban planning can be designed to restrict the movement of citizens, making it harder for them to navigate and escape. Architecture can also be used as a tool of propaganda, with the design of buildings and public spaces conveying specific messages or ideas.

Soviet-era architecture, for example, was often designed to communicate the ideals of communism and the power of the state.Finally, architecture can be used to promote economic development and infrastructure projects that benefit the state. Large-scale construction projects such as highways and airports can help to boost the economy and reinforce the power of the state. Soviet-era architecture, for example, was often designed to communicate the ideals of communism and the power of the state.Finally, architecture can be used to promote economic development and infrastructure projects that benefit the state. Large-scale construction projects such as highways and airports can help to boost the economy and reinforce the power of the state.

The architecture of resistance is a concept that refers to the use of architecture as a tool for political resistance against oppression, domination, or injustice. It involves designing buildings, spaces, and structures that express opposition to the status quo and promote social change.

The architecture of resistance can take many forms, from overtly political buildings that serve as symbols of resistance to more subtle design choices that challenge dominant ideologies. For example, a building’s design may incorporate symbols, imagery, or materials that represent a particular cause or movement. Alternatively, public spaces may be designed to encourage free expression and civic engagement, allowing people to gather and discuss issues that are important to them.

Collection 1

Resistance through architecture, Worldwide

Non-Action Replacement Obstruction

Rational use of non-action

Radical reuse

An obsticle created in order to have bigger damage

The architecture of resistance is often associated with social and political movements that seek to challenge power structures and promote social justice, such as anti-colonial, feminist, or environmental movements. It can also be a means of preserving cultural identity and heritage in the face of political and social repression.

There is no such thing as universal architecture of resistance. It is always particular, responding to the specifics of a place and time. The achitecture of resistance is impermanent, ephemeral, because situations change, and with them the very need for resistance.

Architecture can resist by being for something, so after resistance, it still will have a meaning.

Irony Substitution Radical Invasion

Irony over the seriousness of the previous ‘generation” gaze

Temporary replacement of the main function

Radical projects without a chance to physical life

Using architecture as a tool of resistance is a reflection of the power and potential of design to shape the world around us. Architects are able to create spaces that embody our deepest values and aspirations, and use these spaces as a means to resist authoritarianism and oppression.

Throughout history, architects have used their skills to challenge dominant power structures and resist oppressive regimes. From the ancient Greeks, who designed temples as a means of resistance against the Persians, to contemporary architects. During the civil rights movement in the US, architects designed community centres, churches and other public buildings that provided safe places for African American communities to organise and gather. Similarly, during the Occupy Wall Street movement, architects designed opening

Collection 2

Architecture as a tool

Liberty

structures and shelters to support protesters and maintain their occupation of public spaces. Another approach to architecture of resistance is to involve users in the design process. This participatory design approach is a powerful tool for empowering marginalised communities and creating spaces that reflect their values and aspirations.

The architecture of resistance offers a powerful way to rethink architecture as an emancipatory, inclusive and elitist practice accessible to only a few. This approach raises important questions about the role of the architect in society and whether architecture can truly be an insurgent practice where everyone has the potential to be an agent of design and construction.

The example of Moscow serves as a clear illustration of how the authorities appropriate all public space. Henri Lefebvre’s concept of the ‘right to the city’ is lost, as any opinions that diverge from state ideology are pushed to the physical or discursive periphery of the city, if not both.

Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin’s team employs the urban planning technique of initially saturating space with meaning. Thus, any space built, renovated or restored already has a label or functionality prescribed by the authorities. Scholars have pointed out that urban planners, who usually work for the authorities, tend to disregard the opinions of residents regarding certain urban spaces. In the interaction model between space and ideology, ideology tends to physically transform space.

Collection 3

City as unwilling participant, Russia

Sakharova avenue, Moscow

Mayakovskaya Square, Moscow

In the last decade, there has been a strong trend towards either endowing territories with meanings or depriving them of meanings. Cecil Clementin’s work highlights how empty spaces in the city are appropriated by the discourse of power. For instance, the empty square between the Borovitsky Gate and the Pashkov House was filled with a huge statue of Prince Vladimir, who is revered in Orthodoxy as Equal-to-the-Apostles, introducing the power discourse of ‘Orthodoxy as the spiritual pillar’ of the country. Meanwhile, the empty square that emerged after the demolition of the Rossiya Hotel, located just a hundred metres from the Kremlin walls, was stripped of its political status, and Zaryadye Park was established in its place.

Khokhlovskaya Square “The Pit”, Moscow Lubyanka Square, Moscow

The close relationship between architecture and urban planning professionals and the authorities in Russia has become increasingly apparent over the last decade. The ‘My Street’ program, a multi-year project aimed at improving the urban environment and landscaping of areas, has brought positive changes to public spaces in numerous Russian cities. However, concerns have been raised about the quality of work done, with some suggesting that the tiles used were intentionally low quality to create a case for more funding and possible corruption. Additionally, the program has been criticized for the use of CCTV footage to identify individuals who do not conform to the government’s wishes, as well as the excessive and sometimes contradictory functions assigned to public spaces that can limit people’s ability to reflect..

Another program launched two years later, the housing renovation program, aimed at replacing the housing stock of the 1950s to 1980s, mainly the so-called ‘Khrushchevs’. Despite being presented as a way to improve

Collection 4

Architect as co-creator

How it was

What have been done or how it was presented

residents’ quality of life and create a comfortable urban environment, it sparked much debate and controversy. The assessment of the cost of housing and social support for the inhabitants was considered unethical, and the state’s involvement in new construction and the relocation of residents from expensive to cheaper areas of the city was suspect.

The Russian state architectural bureau’s involvement in designing new residential buildings for the Ukrainian city of Mariupol during the ongoing conflict is a striking example of the interaction between architects and the authorities. Despite the city being destroyed by Russian bombs, a new master plan for the city, complete with bicycle lanes and recreational areas, was created and published by the Russian Ministry of Construction the same month as the annexation. Clips of happy residents of new residential complexes are continuously aired on state television, using architecture as a form of propaganda and bribery. This raises ethical concerns regarding the role of architects in advancing the interests of the state.

By what terms

Other side of the result

When it comes to art in the USSR, the usual associations arise: socialist realism, strict censorship, lack of creative freedom. But in addition to official art, there was also underground art, inaccessible to the mass viewer for ideological reasons. These were works that did not fit the criteria of conventional social realism.

During the 1960s, artists used images of spacecraft and cosmonauts in their works as a form of protest against government policies. These works hinted at human rights violations and social injustice, and stood in contrast to conceptualism by directly mocking the Soviet regime.

To avoid censorship, artists organized independent underground exhibitions that showcased works forbidden for public display. However, these activities put artists at risk of reprisals from state authorities. In the 1980s, many artists emigrated from the country, while those who stayed tried to establish constructive dialogue with the authorities. In Leningrad, artists formed the Association of Experimental Exhibitions,

Collection 5

Resistance through culture, Russia

Soviet

which organized many exhibitions over the next decade. This allowed artists to showcase their works to the public and to engage with the government in a more constructive manner.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian culture, having found itself embedded in a global context, lost the right to be universal and define its own criteria. The artists were able to reflect on the experience of searching for a new national identity and language of representation. Their response was a radical gesture of exhibitionism, communicative violence and linguistic surrender.

It could be said that performances, installations and other gestures became the only artistic fact in contemporary Russian culture in which the relationship between man and power, economic catastrophe and the ambition of a new national ideology were reflexed.

Not Allowed

Russia

For now partly allowed

Reasons

What?

Agency of Architecture

I am deeply interested in the properties of architecture that are necessary and significant for the projects and situations I am examining. I believe that architecture has the potential to be a powerful tool for subtle forms of resistance. Unlike more direct forms of resistance such as protests or texts, architecture’s impact is not always immediately apparent and may involve a range of diverse methods for engaging with people. This is because architecture doesn’t just present itself to individuals; it also shapes the spaces they occupy.

My intention is to utilize architectural skills at the intersection of art. Unlike fine art, which more frequently provides users with an opportunity for observation and introspection, I aspire to involve the full spectrum of human senses and encourage interaction with the user.

My objective is not only to interact with visitors but also to connect with other architects who find themselves in similar circumstances or share my situation. By applying the principles of participatory

architecture, I aim to transfer these skills to interactions with other professionals and engage in collaborative work.

I seek to explore the potential and agency of architecture in the face of an authoritarian regime. Although I do not anticipate finding a clear-cut solution, I intend to utilize my profession as a medium for resistance. My hope is that through this work, I can inspire others to see the possibilities of architecture beyond its traditional role and to recognize the power it holds in shaping our world.

Project goals

Emergance of a doubt

To raise doubts by encouraging people to participate with an architecture built on ambiguities

Architect as an activist Architecture and the knowledge of architects as a hidden tool in the conversation

Upon conducting an analysis of the categories of interest, two primary objectives for the project were identified.

The overarching goal is to explore the potential of architecture to interact with people, specifically examining how architectural tools can engage users in interaction and deepen the comprehension of their experience. This includes investigating whether architecture can operate on a subconscious level, evoking associations and prompting a thought process. Architecture shapes physical and symbolic boundaries, influencing individual and social trajectories. Therefore, we seek to assess the extent to which architecture affects individuals and whether it has enough agency to engage with them on a subconscious level, prompting reflection rather than delivering a concrete message.

It is my contention that the present circumstances in my country can be attributed to a lack of critical thinking skills among the populace. I believe this is a result of historical events, living condi-

tions, and types of regimes and authorities that have emphasized the immediate physical concerns necessary for survival, leaving little time for reflection. However, I maintain that the habit of reflection and the ability to think critically can be cultivated through a gradual and unobtrusive process. In light of the current limitations on active protest in Russia, the tools of spatial practices, as opposed to overt influence, are more suitable than ever.

My objective is to restore the social mission of architecture and architects in authoritarian countries, creating a tool that permits architects to serve the public good directly with their hands. It is worth noting that defining the public good may prove challenging. In this project, we do not seek to convey a particular message to the public; rather, we hope to establish a starting point for fostering reflection on what individuals require for a better life.

Design

Project tools

Machines

Project tools

The term “architectural machines” was originally coined by French philosopher Gilles Deleuze to describe how architecture can be viewed as a dynamic system that generates and transforms subjectivity. In this sense, architectural machines are not just functional or aesthetic objects, but active and dynamic systems that both shape and are shaped by human experience and perception. By integrating the elements of plastic arts, the utilitarian nature of architecture, and the constraints in which architects work, I aim to create the Architectural Machine.

The machine is the formal embodiment of social issue that concerns the architect. As the playwright of my work, I can choose which machine to design, and in my case, I choose the Machine of Political. Machines address the relationship between architecture and power, and while there are no definitive answers, attempts can be made to explore this relationship.

All machines have a certain set of features required to interact with people.

Building in ambiguities can trigger one’s desire to be involved in the workings of the machines. A certain curiosity needs to be elicited in the architecture to ensure this participatory act. I play with conventions and clichés, although they would never be fully confirmed. They will provide the user with the necessary information base even before the interaction begins and serve as the foundation for the development of doubts.

I aim to create a language that architects can use to create their own machines that speak the vernacular of their location and respond to their experiences. And since we cannot predict the outcomes of the interaction, this is just an attempt to set the stage for further reflection..

Mechanism of participation

Machines deal with architecture in the form of participatory engagement with a people. We want to evolve the concept of participation to a more active engagement with the public. We see people as co-creators of the built environment, as opposed to passive recipients of design decisions. In our opinion, this should help users develop a personal relationship with the subject and provoke a personal opinion of it.

In this context, the machine can be seen as a metaphor for architecture, as both are complex systems made up of multiple parts that work together to achieve a common goal. The mechanism, then, refers to the way in which people interact with the built environment. Just as a machine cannot function without proper mechanisms, architecture cannot fulfill its purpose without the participation of people who inhabit it.

Participatory architecture is not only about involving the public in the design process but also about empowering them to take an active role in shaping their

surroundings. This can take many forms, from community workshops and public consultations to co-design processes and collaborative construction projects. The aim is to create a sense of ownership and belonging among people who use the space, which in turn can lead to a more sustainable and resilient community.

Another benefit of participatory architecture is that it can lead to a more meaningful and satisfying experience for the people who use the space. When people feel that they are capable to change something in the design of a building or a public space, they are more likely to feel sense of ownership and pride in the space. This can lead to a greater sense of community and social cohesion, which in turn can have positive impacts on health and wellbeing.

Machines References

The mentioned projects share a common interest in creating immersive and interactive architectural experiences that engage the viewer’s senses and emotions. These works challenge traditional understanding of architecture as a static and functional entity, and instead propose more fluid and dynamic relationship between space, perception, and experience.

Despite the diversity of the approaches, these works share a common goal of creating spatial experiences that go beyond mere function or form, and instead aim to provoke more profound engagement with a space and its implications.

These pojects can be seen as “architectural machines” insofar as they use technology, mechanics, and sensory stimuli to create an interactive and transformative experience of space.

Design principles Machines

Architectural machines are interactive constructions that aim to instil doubt in the participant. Their design principles must abide by fundamental parameters, upon which various images can be superimposed. Embedding a sense of curiosity within the architecture of machines is imperative for facilitating human interaction with them. Ambiguity must also be present, as it “triggers” human desire to engage with these architectural machines.

We anticipate that this project will be useful for architects from any authoritarian country. They can utilize this concept to produce their own machines. As the objects interact with users through language and comprehensible symbols, it is crucial for these machines to fit the specific context of their location, making each machine unique and suitable only for particular zones.

To ease the process of designing machines by other architects, we have outlined the principles that guided us in creating our own machines.

The primary and fundamental parameter is the ability for human interaction with the machine, along with the presence of ambiguity within its design elements. The physical parameters and location recommendations are only advisory and depend mainly on the architects’ financial resources, the environment’s availability, and the state’s control over public spaces.

AMBIGUITY OF MACHINES

LOCATIONS FOR MACHINES

Architectural machines are the carriers of embedded metaphors. Only through interaction with machines users can reveal hidden meanings and experience them through different senses.

The machines are created for thoughtful and innumerable interactions that allow the exploration of symbols that are not what they seem at the first sight. Multiplication of complexity allows seeing the world in its diversity. It also creates various contradictions and paradoxes.

Proposed technical characteristics improve usability, assembly, and relocation of machines. 1 2 3 4

The creators are the ones who decide locations for their machines. Certain criteria of location are important to ensure that wide range of people get to interact with machines.

Through human-machine interaction, it is assumed that doubt is aroused

Physical parameters of machines

Recommendations on physical parameters are rather tentative and the degree of compliance depends almost solely on the capabilities of architects and/or machine builders.

We take as basic parameters a low budget for construction, installation and transportation of objects, as well as the ability to move objects in one ‘meaningful’ area.

However, there are some factors that have to be taken into account when designing architectural machines that aim to interact with visitors. The first parameter pertains to the autonomy of design, which permits the machine to engage visitors without the involvement of the author. The machine must be designed to facilitate interaction with visitors in a seamless manner, ensuring positive experience. Additionaly, vernacular materials are recommended, as they help visitors to build initial connection with the object as something familiar and recognizable, thereby easing the entry into the interaction.

PHYSICAL PARAMETERS OF MACHINES

Proposed technical characteristics improve usability, assembly, and relocation of machines.

- Modular structure enables easy assembly and relocation.

- Availability of professional equipment or skill can influence complicity of joints.

One or two creators with average construction skills can assemble the machine. The results may vary depending on the finances or skill.

- The maximum weight of detail is related to the amount of creators:

24 kg - one creator

33 kg - two creators

Interactivity

Design of machine ought to initiate an interaction with a user without participation of the creator.

- Autonomy of the machine is crucial as contact with the creator can greatly affect user-perception of the machine.

- All interactive mechanisms should be usser-friendly and intuitive.

- It’s essential to add a short description label for each machine.

Mobility

In order to interact with wide amount of people it’s important to change locations. Hence, it’s crucial to create machines with future relocations in sight.

Dimensions

In order to have a wide range of possible locations, machines need to be designed within certain dimmensions - from minimal sizes of a doorway to the maximal sizes related to usability, safety and future relocations.

Mobility Materials

Local and easy-to-access materials will help machines to become more accessible in construction and to connect with people by using familiar materials in unfamiliar way.

- Wheels can be used in design of machine, but it’s crucial to choose appropriate wheel-type for the future relocations.

- Structure of machine needs to be flexible and sturdy for the repeated reassembly. Avoid fixed joints (welding) and joints that can damage material over time (self-tapping screws).

- The minimal dimensions are related to the size of doorway - 80x210cm (WxH)

- Beware of height limitations for usability and future relocations (height of bridges, tunnels, parking, etc.)

- Beware of size and requirements limitations for structures without building permit.

-Beware of dimension limitations for relocation with car or bicycle (width of roads and paths).

- Using local materials in the creation of machine can give a greater sense of connection with the surroundings.

- Easy-to-access materials are materials that widely available in any location. Using them in the creation of machines will reduce construction time and costs.

A concept of interaction between visitors and architectural machines plays a crucial role in revealing the metaphors embedded in these objects. In order to enhance visitors’ experience, it is recommended that multiple machines are endowed with the ability to interact with different senses and a varying number of people. This will allow visitors to fully perceive machines and meanings embedded in them.

Parameters related to interaction with sences are the most significant to consider in the design of architectural machines. Human perception of a space is determined by both visual and bodily sensations. Therefore, incorporating interaction with multiple senses can make the perception of machines more dynamic and memorable. This approach also provides authors with more opportunities to communicate with the user through the architectural language.

Human interaction with an architectural machine

Architectural machines are the carriers of the embedded metaphors. Only through interaction with machines users can reveal hidden meanings and experience them through different senses.

Seemingly passive our bodies constantly receive information and analyze surroundings through though primary senses.

- Vision. Distant Stimulation

Vision is the quickest human sense of all. Sight enables quick spatial assessment, but designing primarily or exclusively for sight will prevent from creating an allrounded and in-depth experience. Sensations of shape & size, ratios of color, shade and shadow, space, and motion.

- Hearing. Distant Stimulation

Sound helps a person perceive space. Sound reaches a person, while sight shows what is in the distance. Sensations of localization, loudness, pitch, acoustically reflective or absorbing materials, shape/ size of a space, and amount of objects inside.

- Smell. Inhaled Stimulation

Smell is an important human sense that is closely connected to memory and emotions. People are able to remember a certain place or an event by a particular smell related to it.

- Skin-Sense of Air. Contact Stimulation

Skin is the biggest sensory organ of the human body. Even without active touch, it’s possible to sense changes in temperature or humidity. Air and wind can work as sensory material, giving the brain signals about the qualities of space. Sensations of air movement, environmental temperature, the warmth of the sun, and humidity in the air.

- Pressure and Tension through active touch

Actively exploring and interacting with the space through own sensations, enables new perspectives for the perception of the space.

Active touch stands for initiating and seeking information about an object or a surface through haptic senses. Further exploration of objects can evolve into applying more forcible touch, making it movable and experiencing new sensations like pressure or tension either in interaction with the objects or with one’s self.

- Haptic. Contact Stimulation

Tactile architecture promotes slowness and closeness, it engages and unifies. Tactile sensitivity replaces distancing visual cues with improved materiality, closeness, and intimacy. Sensations of surface temperature, roughness/hardness or softness, contour identity, and vibrations.

- Expansion/Compression of Space

It’s perceivable through different sensory experiences. Even being unable to see the space it’s possible to perceive changes in height due to the difference in acoustics.

- Kinesthesia. Position and movement in space

Kinesthesia is the perception of body movements through changes in body position and motion. It enables instead of just seeing the space or watching other people experience the space, to explore it through active interaction with the space.

- The mechanism needs to be user-friendly and intuitive.

An architectural machine is an architectural object with an interactive mechanism within. Through the interaction with the mechanism user can explore the imbedded symbolism and metaphore of the object.

- One user

- Two users (gender,age,nationality)

- Three to six users (amount of users allows comfortable simultaneous interaction)

User can experience different things by interacting with machine while being alone or with various people around. Creating machines for different amount of people allows wider range of experiences.

- One user vs others

Ambiguity of machines

We advocate for a multiplication of complexity, as oversimplified representations of the world lead to homogenization and the erasure of diversity. The incorporation of certain level curiosity in the design is essential in facilitating human interaction with machines, while the presence of ambiguities can stimulate human desire to engage with them.

Our approach assumes that establishing a basic understanding of an object can facilitate the formation of an opinion about it. Thus, it is important to create “base” symbols that are familiar to the user and to employ widely recognized archetypal forms.

In situations where expressing oneself through traditional means such as speech or writing is risky or prohibited, art and architecture can provide means of veiled expression. By utilizing the language of architectural harmonization, metaphors, and symbols, and working with different modes of perception, authors can convey messages to people in multiple dimensions, without having to express them directly.

AMBIGUITY OF MACHINES

The machines are created for thoughtful and innumerable interactions that allow the exploration of symbols that are not what they seem at the first sight. Multiplication of complexity allows seeing the world in its diversity. It also creates various contradictions and paradoxes.

In the world of post-truth, it is important to have an anchor, a foundation of sorts. Otherwise, anything can be questioned. This can cause excessive distrust, a lack of understanding of the essence of the machine, and doubt on even basic aspects of it. An understandable and familiar to the majority symbolism of the machine will enable average person to have a basic understanding of the machine even before interacting with it. And with the futrther exploration enable user to discover metaphor embedded with machines by the creators.

Clear symbolism will facilitate initial interaction with the machine. Unlike archetypes, which are perceived almost intuitively, symbols are intertwined with the culture. Therefore, the symbolism may differ from region to region and from country to country.

Archetypality

An archetype is a prototype, the original meaning of something. The “first” form or basic model is copied, imitated, or “merged” with other statements or objects but the fundamental characteristics are kept intact. In the creation of machines familiar and archetypical forms can be used to create an easily distingvished structure. For example, the tower archetype is a cylindrical shape elongated along the vertical axis.

In a situation where expressing one’s opinion in the usual way, trough writing or speaking, becomes dangerous or forbidden, architecture and the art can help to express one’s position in an indirect, veiled way. Using metaphors and symbols, working with different types of perception, transmitting information multidimensional, the creators can convey the desired message to the users without doing it in a prohibited manner. Even as authoritarian states are constantly improving the recognition of even metaphorical references, the art has no limitations in the symbolism of images.

Common element used in several machines creates coherent visual assembly for the user.

Combinations

When creating several machines, particular combinations can enhance users’ perception of the machines. The machines can be assembled together or placed at a distance from each other. In different locations, various combinations can be used - there are no limitations in quantity.

Architectural composition

Architecture can convey the embedded message by using harmonization tools. Perceived intuitively, they give aesthetic expressiveness to the machines, influence users’ perception of spaces, and reveal hidden meanings in a multidimensional way.

A metaphor embedded in the machines enables an alternative way of communication between the creator and the user. Through interaction with the machine embedded metaphors can arouse a doubt in the knowledge of the user and it can initiate a change in their perception. For example political metaphor can be used to explore different angles of present society.

- Theoretical human rights vs Actual human rights

- Architectural expression of the machines and qualities of the mechanisms within vs characteristics of propaganda

- Political statements of the regime influence various architectural characteristics of the machines.

Architecture

Symbolism

Metaphor

- A-contextual

If machines are going to be frequently relocated to the different areas with various cultures and characteristics, it’s advisable to use universally known symbols.

- Recognizable

Even if the machine operates in a single specific place, the main symbol of the machine needs to be unmistakably recognizable to a wide range of people.

- Colors

The same color can be applied differently by using various tints, shades, or tones.

- Mono-materiality

Mono-materiality is the use of predominantly one material for esthetic and technical parts of machines. It can look especially impressive when using different processing techniques for the same material.

- Theme

Creating with the same symbolic theme can unite separate machines in one assembly. For example, it can be the simple geometrical shapes - cube, cone, pyramid, etc.

- Scale and Proportions

The same scale of objects helps a person to perceive them as part of an assembly. This applies both to the proportionality of linear dimensions (height, width), and to the similarity of areas and volumes.

-Repetition

Repeatedly applying specific elements in the creation of different machines can visually unite them and enable the user to see them as part of the same group

- Routing

Consider various user scenarios. Since the machines interact with different human senses, focus on different experiences through exploration.

- Common characteristics

Several machines don’t have to be positioned next to each other. Having common elements, keeping visual connection, and having the same theme of the site placement - machines with common distinct characteristics can be considered a group.

- Base Floor level, similar finishing materials, or one base structure for several objects can be used as a unifying factor.

- Various experiences

Grouped machines can help unveil and enhance the experiences that users get from interaction. Placing contrasting machines next to each other can influence the experience of exploration.

- Assembly

An assembly of machines can create a unifying metaphor that each machine will amplify. By changing the configuration of the assembly different scenarios can be created, and therefore cause a greater range of experiences for the users.

Locations for machines

The concept of the project is that the choice of a specific location for each of the machines is left to the authors of objects. This approach allows machines to be situated in various countries and regions, thereby exposing people from diverse backgrounds to the interactive and participatory nature of machines. To optimize the number of individuals who can interact with the machines, we suggest several criteria to aid in the selection of appropriate sites.

The proposed criteria include accessibility, visibility, and the presence of public spaces. By considering these criteria, authors can increase the likelihood of machines being experienced by a diverse range of individuals.

Urban and rural areas require careful consideration of various traffic flows and population groups in choosing a site for the machines. Certain conditions are necessary for extensive interactions with the machines.

We reccomend use locations like:

- Gathering places

- Areas with stable people traffic

- Places in need of activation

LOCATIONS FOR MACHINES

The creators are the ones who decide locations for their machines. Certain criteria of location are important to ensure that wide range of people get to interact with machines.

Avoid places where people cannot interact with cars due to traffic, the inherently present and distracting function of the place and buildings in the environment, places where the appearance of unusual objects will not create any interaction..

Yes:

- Public squares and parks

- Areas in close proximity to the schools and universities

- Space left over after development, often designed without function

- Undeveloped space, either abandoned or awaiting redevelopment

- Quiet areas in the neighborhoods where people like to hang out

In close proximity to the playgrounds

No:

- Museums or any kind of Exhibition centers

- Next to the Shopping centers

- Art/Architecture schools

- Spaces for selected groups, are determined and sometimes controlled by age or activity.

- Areas close to the train stations, bus, and metro stops

- Formally public and external uses, are internalized and, often, privatized.

The scale of architectural structures is determined by their place and significance in the ensemble of a street, a square, a city, and the natural surroundings.

If an object does not match its surroundings, it is perceived as out of scale. It often attracts more attention or makes it stand out from the average scale of its surrounding environment

Scale within context

Typologies of space

Urban and rural areas

Machines

Examples

In order to refine the methodology for creation of architectural machines and to have formal examples of design, project conssit of several examples of the architectural machines.

The presented machines are intended to be situated in the Central European region of Russia. Their physical parameters are designed for simplicity, ease of transportation between locations, and use of locally-sourced materials. Their image is based on commonly known archetypal architectural elements and their associated symbolism, particularly in relation to the political metaphor in architecture. Machines are named after their mode of interaction with users and senses through which their meanings are conveyed.

Each machine creates a dichotomy in its interaction with users, contrasting familiar archetypes with metaphorical representations of familiar political symbols.

Rather than making direct political statements, machines employ the language of architectural elements and composition to convey their message. This approach enables machines to potentially exist in a repressed environment under control of an authoritarian state.

It is not the intention of machines to impose the author’s opinion on users; rather, they seek to explore the possibilities of interaction with human perception.

The Machine of expression

The Wall

a. The Wall separates two spaces b. The Wall is also a uniting point of two c. In Authoritarian regimes presence only one ideology can have the place d. “Other” is hidden from e. Discerning eye and an interested mind can find hidden “other” f. Once founded, it can grow and spread around

In the realm of architecture, a wall serves two purposes: dividing space and supporting the roof. While the support of the roof is a technical issue, the separation of space also reflects social behavior between individuals. In either case, the wall signifies a boundary between two territories, highlighting the power dynamics between them. Thus, the architecture of the wall takes on a symbolic meaning as a representation of the struggle between the “attacking” outside and the “safe” inside.

In the political context, walls represent physical and metaphorical barriers that divide communities and people. Throughout history, walls have been used as a means of defense, but they can also serve as tools of exclusion, oppression, and isolation. For instance, the Great Wall of China was erected to protect against foreign invasions, but it also restricted movement of people and goods within China. Similarly, the Berlin Wall, built during the Cold War, symbolized ideological divide between East and West and separated families and communities for decades.

In authoritarian regimes, dissenting opinions are not tolerated and are therefore suppressed or hidden. Externally, the regime’s discourse is reflected in monumental, unified structures that do not divide, since only one opinion is permitted. The “other” is relegated to the inside, where only a discerning eye and an interested mind can gain access, to learn, grow, exchange and spread the information.

Since the Expression Machine is meant to be a free-standing object, we tried to choose materials that best reflect the types of walls that are familiar to the average person and that actually divide the space. One such material that is widespread, easy to transport and process is aerated concrete blocks. In Russia, they are often used for the construction of interior partition walls, as well as the construction of private houses.

Often, the material is encased in wooden battens to hang the exterior façade or the trim panels. We used that technique in the internal volume of the wall to underline the fact that the inside wall space, although different, is still a part of the unfinished construction.

The aerated concrete blocks themselves are relatively dull and inexpressive material, and it was perfectly suited to express the one-sidedness, lack of interest in having only one possible opinion or option. The inside of the wall, on the other hand, is covered in brightly coloured posters, working in contrast to the mono materiality of the wall on the outside. Without looking closely at the contents, one notices the abundance of options, the interest and desire to explore.

However, to contrast the monotony of the exterior, we covered the inside of the wall with brightly colored posters that offer an abundance of options and encourage exploration. The posters serve as a reminder that there are always multiple perspectives and possibilities, and that individual expression should be celebrated.

As there are several stages of changing machine locations, the construction is prefabricated and collapsible, unlike the traditional way of assembling blocks on binder mortar or horizontal reinforcement.

Additional holes were made in the blocks which allow reinforcing the blocks with small metal bars by sliding them on top of each other. Additional strength is provided by the construction of wooden beams, which also serve as holders for the posters.

The number and position of the vertical wooden beams can vary, as they are attached by threaded rods and wood nuts to the metal brackets attached to the reinforcement between the blocks.

Posters are attached to small-section horizontal bars that rest loosely on the vertical beams. Posters are variable and will be replaced during the time when the machine will be in use, so it does not require any permanent fixing.

The Machine of different perspectives

ability to serch for answers and find a way in the dark d. Will give every person, no matter of their status, ability to look aroud broadly and see reasons

The architectural archetype of the tower is a tall, vertical structure that serves variety of purposes. Historically, towers were built for defense and provided a vantage point to observe and protect surrounding area. As architecture evolved, towers began to serve a more symbolic function, often representing power, wealth, and prestige, representing both practical and symbolic values.

Tower can be seen as a symbol of power, authority, and surveillance. The height of a tower offers a vantage point to see and control surrounding area. As such, towers have been used throughout history as symbols of political power and control.

One example is the Tower of Babel, which represents the hubris and ambition of humanity to reach heavens and attain god-like status. In the medieval period, castles and fortresses often had towers that served as lookout points and strongholds for those in power. Similarly, during the Renaissance, towers were used as symbols of the wealth and power of the ruling class. In modern times, watchtowers and guard towers are commonly associated with surveillance and control, particularly in the context of prisons and border control.

The metal profiled sheet as the primary material in our project serves to subvert the traditional associations of grandeur and monumentality with towers and monuments. Instead, the material is often used for utilitarian purposes, it covers construction sites, is used in low-cost private buildings or sites. Where architectural harmony has no place to exist. That contrasts with the typical connotations of power and authority associated with towers. Metal sheets is arranged in a rythm a dynamic, upwardly pointing pattern and makes the tower seem taller than it is, emphasizing the tower’s volume.

The reflective nature of the metal also creates a sense of ambiguity, as the tower’s appearance changes with the surrounding environment and lighting conditions.

We aim to create the tower that allows individuals to observe situation without placing themselves above others or emphasizing their own power. The tower serves as a symbol of courage, inviting visitors to open doors that may seem closed and explore the unknown. Through this exploration, one can begin to discern what is truly important.

The tower’s prefabricated wooden frame with metal profiled sheet cladding provides a sturdy structure that can be easily assembled and disassembled multiple times. The non-destructive bolts in the wood make it possible to take the frame apart without causing damage, which makes the tower a versatile and portable construction. The deepening of the vertical bar into the ground adds extra stability, while the car tires create a large footprint and ensure the structure’s stiffness.

One of the most notable feature of the tower is the periscope inside, which offers visitors a view of the surrounding area. By turning the upper mirror, visitors can adjust the view and enhance their experience, and also help to adjust reflection, make it sutable for the hight and hence angle of view. The periscope works through a simple but effective mechanism, based on the principle of a shutter, but with a much simpler and more streamlined design, avoiding the need for complex gears or mechanisms.

The Machine of superiority

a. A Tribune is a symbol of power and authority, as the person who stands on it commands attention and can influence the thoughts and emotions of those listening. b. The use of the tribune can also represent the democratic ideal of giving voice to the people. Each can speak and be heard c. We want to break the totalitarity of a tribune, by dissolving place for one and creating places to many d. The platform allows speakers to address each other and share their messages, allowing free exchange of ideas and opinions

In architecture, a tribune is a raised platform or stage that is typically used for public speaking or for people to address a gathering or an audience. The term “tribune” has its roots in ancient Rome, where it referred to an elevated platform from which public officials or leaders addressed the citizens of Rome..

In totalitarian regimes, the tribune was often used as a propaganda tool to manipulate public opinion and maintain control over the population. It was usually located in prominent public spaces such as city squares, government buildings, or public halls, and was used for public speeches, rallies, and other political events. The layout of the tribune was also carefully designed to emphasize the authority of the speaker and the importance of the event. It was usually elevated above the audience, creating a sense of superiority and dominance.

However, the use of the tribune can also represent the democratic ideal of giving voice to the people. The platform allows a speaker to address a large crowd and share their message, allowing for a free exchange of ideas and opinions. In this way, the tribune can be seen as a tool for empowering the people and promoting democracy.

a.

c.

b.

d.

Our concept for the tribune challenges the traditional perception of this architectural element as a grand, imposing structure. Instead, we focus on creating an interactive and engaging space that encourages discussion and participation.

We keep the focus on the upper platform for the speeches but make the way to it much more important. Each new level is essentially the same platform for the talks, but more in the form of a discussion than a monologue. However, as visitors make their way up the platform, the path becomes more complex, and the proportions become distorted. This creates a sense of challenge and intrigue that encourages visitors to engage with the space.

The whole structure of the podium tilts slightly, about 95 degrees, towards its highest point, one might think it was blown away by an imaginary wind, or it was a deliberate effort to emphasise the upper platform, but something went wrong and everything was left “as it was”.

Instead of the durable and imposing materials usually used for this type of building we use old timber, and in place of the featured and in place of the featured grandiose architectural elements, the accent railing of the upper platform is made of corroded sheet metal. Only the steps of the podium are made of new wood and coated with white paint, emphasising the cleanliness and mono-materiality

The entire structure of the tribune is assembled from old, used timber. In our example, these are beams of similar cross-sections, but as shown in the examples, the beams can be almost any kind of wood stapled together. You can create your own glued wood counterpart using construction staples and bolts. You can also use other materials such as used metal or cardboard, the latter being quite strong and durable for this type of construction.

The entire structure is collapsible, allowing for easy transportation and reassembly in different locations..Large elements are attached using threaded rods and nuts for wood inserts.

The Machine of self-will

The Cell

a. The Cell as a form of separation from society by own cha\oice (Cell of a monk) b. The Cell as a form of forced separation from the society, the cell where you are contantly whatced over (Prison) c. For each person, cell can be a kind of a space that let one to be with their own thoughts, be themselves, behave as each want to d. Each cell can be used by other person. Each person can inside the cell can choose to obey the circumstances and walk away, do not follow decisions of others and stay or strike up a conversation

We consider the cell a small, enclosed space used for confinement, either voluntarily or involuntarily. In the context of monastic life, a cell is a private living space for a monk, often small and simple in design, meant for meditation and contemplation in solitude. The cell represents a space for reflection and self-improvement, where the individual can focus on their spiritual practice away from worldly distractions.

On the other hand, in the context of a prison, a cell is a small room meant for the confinement of inmates. The cell represents a space of punishment and isolation, where the individual is separated from society and subjected to strict control and surveillance.

In architecture, a cell can also refer to a basic modular unit used for constructing larger buildings. For example, in modular construction, cells are prefabricated units that can be easily assembled to create larger or adaptable for current needs structures.

Although functions of monastic cells and prison cells are vastly different, both types of cells are typically small, confined spaces that provide basic necessities for their occupants, usually both spaces have small window with little access to natural light or fresh air. Both types of cells share a common emphasis on confinement and isolation. In both cases, the occupant is separated from the outside world, either by choice or by force. The design of the cell is intended to reinforce this separation, with minimal amenities and little or no contact with others

a.

c.

b.

d.

The architectural concept of the cell is based on the integration of its form and function, creating a modular system that adapts to the surrounding space. The rigid, simple grid maintains a sense of boundaries within each individual cell, providing a sense of separation and isolation for the visitor.

The materiality of the cell is designed to enhance this sensory experience. The metal mesh ceiling and floor allow for a connection with the outside environment while providing a sense of boundary and isolation. The door leaves are available in two sizes, allowing for three different scenarios depending on the visitor’s desire for total restriction, visual access from the outside, or a free passage through the cell space.

The wall-doors are finished with contrasting materials, sheepskin, and charcoal chips, both common materials in the middle zone of Russia, creating a contrasting space in terms of color, texture, and density. This contrast invites the visitor to choose the type of space they want to experience, whether it be soft and warm or prickly and dirty.

The use of vernacular materials and a simple construction technique make the cell accessible and adaptable to a range of environments. The sensory and architectural archetypes of the cell combine to create a unique experience that challenges the visitor’s perception of space and boundaries.

The Cell is a modular system. It consists of a main element that forms the basis of each space type. The element is made up of two crossbars, a vertical metal tube firmly fixed between them, and bearings that allow the door blades to rotate. Four door-wall blades are then fixed to the vertical tube with a single bar or several small bars, depending on the materials available.

The door panels are made of metal mesh with sheepskin wool or charcoal crumb coating on it, which provides soundproofing and hides the person inside the cell from prying eyes. For smaller units, the door frames may not be attached to the vertical axis. In such cases, a solid beam is used around the metal tube, rather than fragments of it, or the crossbar alone may form the smallest unit.

The construction is designed to be simple and vernacular, without requiring the use of difficult-to-access materials. The bearings used to rotate the door are simple, and the construction of the door leaf is lightweight to make it easier to rotate.

The Cell is a space that can be adapted to various needs and situations. Its modular design allows for easy assembly and dismantling, making it a practical solution for temporary or permanent spaces.

Adaptation Machines

The examples of the machine designs shown previously are not location specific. We have based it solely on the region of the country in which the machines are to be located and on the type of locations.

All machines are designed for the central European region of Russia, which is reflected in the materials chosen, the symbols and archetypes used as a semantic base. The types of locations for each machine may vary, but we have tried to reflect some of the possible scenarios in the impressions.

Architects who wish to build the same machines can do so in a different zone and location, it is only necessary to build on the design principles we have formed. This will make interaction with the site more efficient.

Variations

Machines

We aim to inspire architects to embrace the boundless potential of architecture by crafting their own machines or adapting our designs to their cases. Crucially, when devising these machines, it’s imperative to consider their multi-faceted nature and their relationship with people.

We believe that even in the most restrictive environments, any architect can reclaim the essence of their profession by bringing a small yet practical idea to life. Through such an endeavor, they can embark on a journey of self-reflection and discovery, unlocking new dimensions of their craft.

Groups

Machines

Separately, machines propose a recollection of a simple architectural elements and its meanings. Combinations will enhance the effect of interacting with the machine. Moving from one type of space to another extrapolates and exposes the experience.

The grouping of machines allows a new, additional level of metaphor to be added. Each segment forms a starting point for the understanding and functioning of the others.

By working together, they intensify the diversity of possible interpretations, creating a sense of ambiguity and uncertainty in what is perceived and felt.

Epilogue/Preface

Сonclusions and expectations

This project was the beginning of exploring a new relationship between architecture and power in authoritarian states. I sought to use their skills and knowledge to engender positive change by creating a tool that allows architects to serve the public good directly with their hands.

The project’s overarching goal was to explore the potential of architecture to interact with people, examining how architectural tools can engage users in interaction and deepen the comprehension of their experience.

The Architectural Machine, a formal embodiment of a social issue of concern to the architect, was created by integrating the elements of the plastic arts, the utilitarian nature of architecture, and the constraints in which the architect’s work is carried out.

The project was not only about the physical embodiment of architecture, but also about the formation of questions and the search for the right words to describe the current state and possibilities of

architecture. Simplistic perceptions can lead to homogeneity and limit healthy development. The project aimed to promote diversity and expand awareness of reality, even if formal results were not yet known.

Staging

Project developmеnt

Current stage and next steps

The project in its current state represents the first phase of a comprehensive study into the agency of architecture within an authoritarian state.

The formal outcome of the initial phase of the project is the formation of project stages, objectives, and methods for achieving results, formalized through the creation of the first machine prototypes.

The second part of the study will be conducted within the context of an authoritarian country. In our case, in Russia, because at the moment, it highlights the circumstances that interest us most. This stage involves the construction of machines to investigate the range of human reactions during interaction with them. The primary goal of this stage is to test the theory of whether this interaction can occur at all and to determine if people experience doubt about the symbolism of the objects.

We do not make any claims about the nature of the reactions we may observe. Our primary objective is to establish the

conditions for their occurrence and to collect feedback on the reactions that do occur.

The outcome may be either a success or failure; what is essential is the knowledge we gain to inform the next stages of the study.

The culmination of our project hinges on the outcome of the previous stage. A successful outcome will entail achieving our main objective of stimulating visitors to contemplate the significance of machine symbols. This achievement will validate the viability and value of the project, enabling its development and continuation.

As a result, we plan to share our experience, project design principles, and machine prototypes as examples with other architects who share our interests or are in similar situations. We hope to foster collaboration and innovation by encouraging like-minded individuals to explore the agency of architecture and create their own machines.

PROJECT PROBLEMATICS

- The agency of architecture in an authoritarian state

- The relevance of the profession of architect in an authoritarian state

POLITICS ARCHITECTURE

FORMATION OF THE QUESTION

How do you initiate the development of doubt/ critical thinking in people’s heads?

HUMAN EXPECTED RESULT

The emergence of a sense of critical dissonance/ development of critical thinking

METHOD TO ACHIEVE THE RESULT

Creation of Architectural Machines

Confirmation of the theory

Field studiels, to proof that methodology works

CONCLUSIONS

Making conclusions about result is possible and whether this method to solve

SOCIAL EXPERIMENT

Gathering feedback interaction

CONSTRUCTION

Construction of an Architectural Author of the project

STEP 1

FORMATION OF THE PROJECT GOALS AND METHODS

Amsterdam

Author can operate now only in the Netherlands

PROJECT SOCIOLOGY

Russia

As Russia now stands to the issues

CONCLUSIONS

about whether the intended whether it is logical to use solve the problem

SOCIAL EXPERIMENT

on human-machine interaction

CONSTRUCTION

Architectural Machines by an project methodology

SOCIOLOGY

Russia stands out most in contrast issues of interest

If

SHARING

Dissemination of machine building methodologies to willing volunteers

SPREADING

Creation of machines by volunteers

INTERUCTION

Interaction of people and machines

LIFE OF MACHINES

Following life of the machines and collecting reflections

PROJECT PRACTICALITY

Any country Project methodology is created with consideration to be implemented in any

STEP 3

the theory works

Acknowledgement

I am immensely grateful for the invaluable support and guidance provided by my esteemed advisers, from various spheres of expertise. These individuals, ranging from architects to journalists, sociologists to artists, generously offered their time and insights, contributing greatly to make this project happened. Their willingness to engage in meaningful discussions and reflections with me has been instrumental in shaping my understanding of the subject matter.

Egor Legkov

Evgenia Repina

Sergey Malakhov

Tatiana Mikheeva

Anton Shramkov

David Keuning

Nikita Tokarev

Sasha Lyulina

Kostya Budarin

My gratitude to my committee, especially to Marс, who stood by me on this long and often challenging path. His guidance and wise counsel have been invaluable in navigating the twists and turns of this journey. Thank you Michelle for seeing the interest in the project and agreeing to join us halfway through.Your presence in our group has made all the discussions much more lively, productive and useful to me. Thank you to Rick for giving practical advices, even though it seemed obvious you wasn’t thrilled with how the project was developing.

Thanks to Arna, for honesty and very valuable and important advice at the beginning of the journey.

Thank you Pasha for being next to me during my ups and downs. For your help, support and kindness in all the aspects.

My heartfelt thanks to my dear friends, some of whom I have known for over a decades and others whom I met during my study journey. Thank you for all your advice, for your help in production, for putting up with my endless whining, for beeing a source of inspiration and just for being with me. If it wasn’t for your support, I wouldn’t have made it to the end.

Masha Mikheeva

Anastasia Bodrova

Evgenia Kirshbaum

Sofia Zozulia

Mona Al-Asaad

Vladimir Sarukhanyan

Ira Vaneeva

Vlad Volskiy

Floris Koelink

Polina Budanova-Kheyfits

Dasha Budanova

Pola Dominiak

Vladimir Sergeev

Hayk Badalyan

Matt Riches

Gabi Chuecos

Dusya Bodrova

Finally, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my mom, whose unwavering love and support have sustained me through life. Despite our family experienced heartbreaking losses during my time in the Academy, she has remained a pillar of strength, and I am forever grateful for her resilience and the endless love she has shown me.

Sources

Images and data visualisation credits

Cover Yuri Bokser

16 Photograph: Depositphotos

18 Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP/Getty

26 Attribution:Okorok, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

27 Photo: Yuri Kochetkov / EPA-EFE

28 Photograph: Denis Sinyakov/Reuters

29

Photo: Svetlana Vidanova / Novaya Gazeta

30 Photo: Svetlana Vidanova / Novaya Gazeta

31 Photograph: Maxim Zmeyev/Reuters

34 https://data.ovdinfo.org/repressii-v-rossii-v-2022-godu#2

35 https://data.ovdinfo.org/odinochnye-pikety-dannye#1

38 https://tochno.st/materials/emigratsiya-2000-kh

40 https://data.ovdinfo.org/detentions/

41

42

Photo: Evgeniy Maloletka

Photo: Evgeniy Maloletka

48 Photograph: Getty Images

49 Photograph: BBC

50 Independent project “Chronics” https://re-russia.net/expertise/057/

https://www.levada.ru/2022/12/23/konflikt-s-ukrainoj-otsenki-dekabrya-2022-goda/

51 https://www.levada.ru/2022/12/23/konflikt-s-ukrainoj-otsenki-dekabrya-2022-goda/

52 Independent project “Chronics”https://re-russia.net/expertise/057/

53 https://www.levada.ru/2022/12/23/konflikt-s-ukrainoj-otsenki-dekabrya-2022-goda/

58 “Let us close ranks and move towards communism !” Soviet poster, 1964.

Photo: el.kz

59 WPhoto: Associated Press

Photo: Freepik

Photograph: Ilya Naymushin/ ILYA NAYMUSHIN/Reuters/Corbis

66 Sergei Mikhailichenko/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

70 Courtesy of Flickr user Jean-Pierre Dalbéra, licensed under CC BY 2.0

Derek Jensen/Wikimedia Commons

Superstudio

Photo is by Kakidai

71 Photograph by Robert P Ruschak, courtesy of the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

Derek Jensen/Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons

Dr. Volkmar Rudolf/Tilman2007/Wikimedia Commons

72 photographer: Lacaton & Vassal

Photograph: Shutterstock/Carol Anne

Photograph: пресс-служба ДМТЮА Макаренко

73 Archigram

Jason Crum, Project for a painted wall, Hartford, Connecticut, 1969

Alexander Brodsky/Ilya Utkin

74 Estate of Gordon Matta-Clark

Lebbeus Woods

Dan Adams

75 Photograph: Grainne Hassett

Matt Sheehan/The WorldPost

AdDa, Tsai Ming-Hui

76 Photo: Reuters

Photo: readers @varlamov_news

Photo: Reuters

Alexander Kozhokhin. RIA Novosti.

Buromoscow

Photo Ilia Epishkin (onlife.me)

77 Photo MAXIM GRIGORIEV / TASS

Photo: varlamov_news

STRELKA

pastvu.com

Photo: Olga Alekseenko

78 Photo: www.instagram.com/mariupolrada

Art. Lebedev Studio

Photo: DAN

Photo: Denis Voronin

Photo: mos.ru

79 Photo: BBC

Photo XPress

Photo: Reuters

Photo: Maxim Mishin

80 Komar and Melamid, “You’re good!”, 1972

Erik Bulatov, “Glory to the CPSU”

Erik Bulatov. Krasikov Street, 1977

Ilya Kabakov, “The Man Who Flew into Space from His Apartment”, 1985 Collective Action Group, “Losung” actions, 1977 Extra-governmental Control Commission actions, 1999

Photo: Vladimir Sitchev Svoboda.org

81 great_laziness/Twitter

gruppa_voina/Twitter

Photo: MITYA ALESHKOVSKY/TASS

Credit: Youtube/ Reuters

Photo: T.ME/SNCMAG

Photo: GLEB LEONOV

GES-2/V-A-C

Photo: T.ME/SNCMAG

Anna Samoylova

90 Urs Fischer’s Bliss, 2017

92 BEN NICHOLSON, THINKING THE UNTHINKABLE HOUSE, 1996s

“Stair Way to Heaven”, Didier Fiuza Faustino Victims”, John Hejduk 1984

LIBESKIND

Photo: Yuri Palmin

DS+R

Sources

- Walter Benjamin, “The Moscow Diary “

Вальтер Беньямин, “Московский дневник”

- Grigory Revzin, “How the City Works”

Григорий Ревзин “Как устроен город”

- Leonid Polishchuk, “Separately or Together”

Леонид Полищук, “Порознь или сообща”

- Kuba Snopek, “Belyaevo Forever”

Куба Снопек, “Беляево навсегда”

- Higher School of Economics, “Urban Studies and Practices. Vol. 1. # 1, 2016

Высшая школа экономики, “Городские исследования и практики”. Том 1. # 1, 2016

- Strelka press, “Incentives, paradoxes and failures”

Strelka press, “Стимулы, парадоксы и провалы”

- Sergey Sitar, “The Architecture of the External World. The Art of Design and the Emergence of European Physical Representations”

Сергей Ситар, “Архитектура внешнего мира. Искусство проектирования и становление европейских физических представлений”

- Ilya Utekhin, “The Place of Action. Publicity and Ritual in the Space of the Post-Soviet City Илья Утехин, “Место действия. Публичность и ритуал в пространстве постсоветского города”

- Julia Lovell, ‘Extraordinarily Delightful: Architecture and Power in China’.

- Sergey Sitar, “Architecture and Politics Сергей Ситар, “Архитектура и политика”

- Vladimir Kagansky, “How Does Russia Work? Portrait of the Cultural Landscape Владимир Каганский, “Как устроена Россия? Портрет культурного ландшафта”

- Vladimir Paperny, “Culture Three. How to Stop the Pendulum?” Владимир Паперный, “Культура три. Как остановить маятник?”

- Max Weber, “The City”.

- Strelka press, “The Citizen. What we know about the big city dweller”. Strelka press, “ Горожанин. Что мы знаем о жителе большого города”

- Dasha Paramonova, “Mushrooms, mutants, and others: the architecture of the Luzhkov era”.

Даша Парамонова, “Грибы, мутанты и другие: архитектура эры Лужкова”

- Boris Groys, “The Politics of Poetics”.

- Gaston Bachelard, “The Poetics of Space”.

- Boris Groys, “Gesamtkunstwerk Stalin”

- Perry Anderson, “The Origins of the Postmodern”.

- William Mitchell, “I++: Man, City, Networks”.

- W.G. Zebald, “A Natural History of Destruction”.

- Witold Rybczynski, “The Urban Designer”.

Витольд Рыбчинский, “Городской конструктор”

- Maxim Trudolyubov, “Russian Order: Architecture, Happiness, and Order”.

Максим Трудолюбов, “Русский ордер: архитектура, счастье и порядок”

- Boris Groys, “Public Space: From Emptiness to Paradox

- Mike Lydon, Anthony Garcia, Tactical Urbanism

- Paul Goldberger, “Why Architecture Matters”

- Short story collection “Home”

Сборник рассказов “Дом”

- Vladimir Poperny, “Fuck Context?”

Владимир Поперный, “Fuck Context?”

- Richard Sannett, “Flesh and Stone. The Body and the City of Western Civilization.”

- Leo Hollis, “Cities to Your Benefit. The Genius of the Megacity.”

- Michael Strooper, “Keys to the City. How does development work?”

- Jan Gehl, “life between buildings”

- Kevin Lynch, “The image of the city”

- Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour. “ Learning from Las Vegas”

- Robert Venturi, “Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture”

- Koolhaas Rem, “Delirious New York”

- Koolhaas Rem Esseys

- Leslie Kern, “ Feminist City: Claiming Space in a Man-Made World”

- Meganom architects, “Old Moscow.Inventory”

- Meganom architects, “Archeology of periphery”

- Anna Bronovitskaya, Nikolai Malinin, Yuri Palmin, “Moscow: The Architecture of Soviet Modernism 19551991”

Анна Броновицкая, Николай Малинин, Юрий Пальмин “Москва. Архитектура советского

модернизма 1955 - 1991 гг”

- Clementine, C. “Fortress City: the hegemony of the Moscow Kremlin and the consequences and challenges of developing a modern city around a medieval walled fortress”.

- Bach, J., Murawski M. “Re-Centring the City”.

URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvhn085m.9

- Hoxha, V., Dimitrovska Andrews, K., Temeljotov Salay, A. “Cultural factors affecting urban planners’ intentions to regulate public space in Prishtina, Kosovo”

URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24920918,

- Kalashnikov, V. “The Language of Squares “

URL: https://artguide.com/posts/2218?fbclid=IwAR1hpGQhlNu_CzItc7y1nV6S9ihwH6uLYuRi7U-GN9m8_ CTHGCBP0_JsWpY#footnote-1

- Paramonova, D. “Mutant centralities: Moscow architecture in the post-Soviet era.”

URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvhn085m.9

- Mccabe, D. “The humours of space and power // Garden History”

-Карстен Харрис «Этическая функция архитектуры»

- Steen Eiler Rasmussen “ La Experiencia de La Arquitectura”

- Riga, Vladivostok, Lake Baikal. Shkapich, Kim | Hejduk, John

-Mask of Medusa works 1947-1983. Shkapich, Kim | Hejduk, John

- Intellectuals and Power. A conversation between. Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze.

- UMEA Intermmediate architectural interventions

- Technique and formal expression in architecture

https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-000413499

- All and nothing. Symbolic figures in the art of the second half of the twentieth century. Ekaterina Andreeva. Все и ничто. Символические фигуры в искуссстве второй половины ХХ века. Екатерина Андреева.

- The Architecture of the City. Aldo Rossi

- Five Architects. Rowe Colin

- Spontaneous order. Evgenia Repina, Sergey Malakhov. Спонтанный ордер. Евгения Репина, Сергей Малахов.

- Non-referential Architecture. Markus Breitschmid and Valerio Olgiati

- Protest spaces. Moscow rallies and the urban community. Alexei Levinson

Пространства протеста. Московские митинги и сообщество горожан. Алексей Левинсон

- Architecture and Anarchism. Building without Authorrity. Paul Dobraszczyk

- Cedric Price’s Pop-Up Parliament. A Role Model for Media Architecture and Data Politics

- “ Drawing, Writing, Embodying: John Hejduks Masques Of Architecture”. Amy Bragdon Gilley

- Platforms: Architecture and the Use of the Ground. Pier Vittorio Aureli and Martino Tattara

- Shelter Cookbook. Leopold Banchini, Lukas Feireiss, Lloyd Kahn

- Architecture and disjunction. Bernard Tschumi

- Architecture of Resistance: Cultivating Moments of Possibility Within the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict

Yara Sharif

- Making Things Public Atmospheres of Democracy. Bruno Latour, Peter Weiermair

-The Origins of Totalitarianism. Hannah Arendt

- The Image of the City. Kevin A. Lynch

- Robert Venturi: Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. Robert Venturi

- Architecture and planning under different political systems. Dick Urban Vestbro

- OASE 103. Critical Regionalism Revisited 2019

- The eyes of the skin architecture and the senses. Pallasmaa, Juhani | Holl, Steven

- Fundamental concepts of architecture the vocabulary of spatial situations. Jason, Alban | Tigges, Florian

-Ai Weiwei spatial matters : art architecture and activism. Weiwei, Ai | Prins, Anthony

- Tables Settings reflections on architecture with Hannah Arendt

Tafelschikkingen : reflecties op architectuur met Hannah Arendt Teerds, Hans | Grafe, Christoph | Koekoek, Catherine

- Pamphlet architecture 1 - 10

- Osaka follies. Isozaki, Arata | Price, Cedric | Taki, Koji

- Elements of architecture wall. Easterling, Keller | Koolhaas, Rem | Boom, Irma

- Elements of architecture stair. Koolhaas, Rem | Boom, Irma | Trüby, Stephan

- How propaganda works. Tamara Eidelman

Как работает пропаганда. Тамара Эйдельман

- Culture Two. Vladimir Paperny

Культура Два. Владимир Паперный

- Politics of Poetics. Boris Groys

-When the Cathedrals Were White. Le Corbusier Quand les cathédrales étaient blanchesю Le Corbusier

- Less is Enough. Pier Vittorio Aureli

- Оуэн Хазерли. На площади. В поисках общественных пространств постсоветского города

- Henri Lefebvre: The Production of Space

- Boris Groys. Public Space: From Void to Paradox

Борис Гройс. Публичное пространство: От пустоты к парадоксу

- Paul Goldberger. Why architecture matters

- The Architecture of the City. Aldo Rossi

- Tactical Urbanism: Short-term Action for Long-term Change. Anthony Garcia and Mike Lydon Майк Лайдон,Энтони Гарсиа. Тактический урбанизм

- Incentives, Paradoxes and Failures. Architecture as Recreation Cтимулы, парадоксы и провалы.Strelka press

- Make it Real: Architecture as Enactment: Sam Jacob Сэм Джейкоб. Архитектура как воссоздание

- Me++: The Cyborg Self and the Networked City. William Mitchell

Уильям Митчелл. Я++: Человек, город, сети

- Maxim Trudolyubov. Russian order: architecture, happiness and order Максим Трудолюбов. Русский ордер: архитектура, счастье и порядок

- Gropius_Walter_Scope_of_Total_Architecture.

Вальтер Гропиус. Круг тотальной архитектуры

- Gaston Bachelard. The Poetics of Space Гастон Башляр. Поэтика пространства

- On the Natural History of Destruction. W. G. Sebald В.Г. Зебальд. Естественная история разрушения

- Boris Groys. Gesamtkunstwerk Stalin Борис Гройс. Gesamtkunstwerk Сталин

- Vladimir Kagansky. How is Russia organised? Portrait of the cultural landscape Владимир Каганский. Как устроена Россия? Портрет культурного ландшафта

Glory to Ukraine

Freedom for Russia

Long live Belarus

Average Place: Agency of Architecture in the Authoritarian State

Master of Architecture Academy of Architecture, Amsterdam

Copyright © 2023, Maria Khozina