Faithful Reproduction

To explore some of the history and controversy surrounding the resurrection of Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, Russian Life Editor Mikhail Ivanov sat down with Professor William Brumfield. Dr. Brumfield is a frequent contributor to Russian Life magazine, and widely recognized as one of the foremost international experts on Russian architecture.

Russian Life: The official, final consecration of the resurrected Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow this August, among other things, is supposed to bring an end to all the heated discussions around Moscow’s need for such a cathedral. And yet, visitors, politicians and architectural experts alike keep arguing. Some say this was a purely political project, meant to raise the credentials of Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov; some say the church is a “feast amidst the plague,” meaning that the money could have been better spent on other, more urgent things. What is your take on the subject?

William Brumfield: One of the basic premises is that the Russian Orthodox Church wanted to build a large church in order to increase its outreach for the 21st century. They have every right to build that church. It is quite possible that, whatever design they chose, it would not win any awards for artistic excellence, but they have a right to build a big church. Where and how—this is the second element. The administration of Moscow, for political reasons—and not all of them are still fully known—decided that it would be a grand gesture to rebuild this church. It existed in the 19th century and, whether you like the style or not, it was a part of the Moscow cityscape. You could argue about it endlessly, but it was there. And one can also appreciate that. ... Then there is the third premise, that the money could have been used better elsewhere. Power attracts power and money attracts money. The argument, which I call a “zero sum argument,” is simply invalid. The money that went into that church overwhelmingly would only have gone to that church. It would not have been used for other preservation needs, it would not have been used for other charitable needs. I suspect that much of it would have been in a Swiss bank now and would not have been applied to this very visible and, yes, politically-inspired project. So, be it.

RL: As an expert in Russian architecture, you must have your own opinion on these arguments over the “artistic faithfulness” to the original project. For instance, many critics accused the designers of using bronze bas-reliefs, whereas originally the bas-reliefs were made of a different material ...

WB: Well, that church did exist in some form in the 19th century, and, back then too, some people disliked it. And some people consider it to be a very interesting monument. The notion that it doesn’t reproduce point for point the historical texture is simply an unrealistic view of all of the motives involved here. Its purpose, I repeat, has never been to be strictly architectural preservation or restoration. It was a political gesture and it was a gesture also meant for the needs of the Church. The fact that it has a general resemblance to what was there serves both the political and the church needs. It is a visible rejection of everything that communism stood for ... It’s not a preservation issue. The bas-reliefs or the materials used in the construction—they correspond with the reality of present day construction. So one can criticize this endlessly. My architecture students come here and say, “This is shabby, that is shabby.” But that’s another issue. The basic issues are understandable in terms of political and economic reality. And I see no inherent reason to condemn the construction of that church.

RL: And what could you say about the artistic value—if any—of the cathedral, I mean,  either the frescoes inside or the iconostasis?

WB: Some of the frescoes and the iconostasis are perhaps the closest to the original. Some of them are, in fact, the originals which were preserved and rescued, so there I have less of a problem with this and fewer objections than with the construction itself. But, once again, this is not intended to be a literal reproduction. Which, by the way would have been just as dead. Even if they tried to do this, brick-by-brick, what’s the point of that? They used modern building technology for the basic construction ... That’s simply because that’s the way you get things done now.

RL: What could you say about the construction time frame? There was a series of laudatory articles in certain publications praising the speed at which this was done, a bit reminiscent of the “strike construction sites” of the Soviet five-year plans? Was it really fast, by world standards? Do you think accusations of making just another Potemkin village type of project hold water?

WB: Well, it’s a structure, it stands, and they did it quickly. I don’t know what the contract specified, but they did it quickly because they used modern methods. And how could it be called Potemkin if it stands?! It is not a façade, it’s a structure.

RL: Do you think it will add value to the cityscape in this area—around Volkhonka street, and by the Estrady Theater? Also, do you think it really belongs in Moscow or actually ever belonged in Moscow in the first place, when it was built here in the last century? Some experts say it rather belongs in St. Petersburg and is alien to Moscow ...

WB: Moscow is such a wonderful, huge, incongruous element. So I think that argument doesn’t even hold water ... Well, one can make it, one can make it endlessly, but I see nothing basic in the fabric of Moscow that would exclude that building and accept so many others.

RL: Like the lugubrious, gray House on the Embankment across from the cathedral ...

WB: Of course, for example! And Moscow has always been that chaotic agglomeration of styles, which in itself forms a fascinating texture. Now there are obviously things that I disagree with in Moscow, like the monument to the tricentenary of the Russian fleet—commonly known as the statue of Peter the Great. I think it’s a terrible, terrible desecration. There is no way I can see that fit. Not only is it itself a desecration, but also in terms of what it does to the well-preserved urban environment. But that’s a different story ... Moscow has always been a juxtaposition of disparate, dissident elements, sometimes very creatively so. I think Petersburg is a different environment, in much more of uniformed plan. But even there, one can say that one of the most popular monuments in the city is the Church of the Savior on the Blood. And it is a truly dissident element in violent juxtaposition to Petersburg’s landscape. And yet people love it! And it is getting well-restored. But Moscow has always been a clash of styles, of periods, of scales. There is no uniform scale to the city ...

RL: Maybe this is also what Moscow’s beauty is all about?

WB: Yes, I think one can view it that way. So, arguments can go on and on. But I see no fundamentally defined principle that would deny the reasons for the existence of this church. It’s there. One can argue about its original form in the 19th century, what it did to the cityscape ... One can make the same argument again today. But, given the realities of church politics, city politics, and contemporary technology, I see no reason to condemn the project.

RL: I am no expert in architectural value, but I guess it is certainly no more sacrilegious to rebuild the cathedral than to blow it up, as they did in the 1930s. And that swimming pool they had there looked really bizarre ...

WB: Of course, of course. This was a monument in which enormous efforts were placed and invested. It is a monument to a sacred event—the defeat of Napoleon. Russians sacrificed for that, and that’s why it was really a popular monument, built for the people. Later, at the turn of the 20th century, it became more of a tsarist imperial monument. The monument dedicated by Nicolas II (to Alexander III) was placed right next to the church, so it became a whole part of the glorification of the Romanov family, in support of the tercentenary of the dynasty. So it did have this rather heavy status element to it. But it was also a popular monument. And its destruction was an enormous act of violence. As to your point about the swimming pool: all the steam around it created a new microclimate, and that was a problem for the nearby Pushkin museum. No one seems to recall this.

RL: Why do you think this specific reconstruction project attracted so much hype, while others did not? For instance the rebuilt Kazan Church on Red Square, or the Resurrection Gate adjacent to the historical museum? These were also rebuilt from scratch.

WB: Well, because this is simply the biggest thing in central Moscow. It’s something one can see. Plus, the scale, and the expense related to the scale, elicited that sort of response. I know specialists, whose opinion I value very highly, who, in terms of principle, in terms of restoration, are just as critical of the rebuilding of the Resurrection Gate by Red Square as they are of this project. In other words, you can adopt a principle that: “any reconstruction is dead.” It’s a sort of a maximalist point of view, but you can adopt it. So, in a sense, their principle objection is not different from one project to the other. But it’s the scale of the cathedral that draws the attention—positive or negative.

I respect the judgment of Russian colleagues who are opposed to this and say so many other things about desperate other needs. I travel all over this country and I have seen those needs. I know that, for a fraction of a fraction of what it cost to build Savior’s Cathedral, valuable work could be done in Arkhangelsk province or Vologda or even in the suburbs of Moscow ... But again: this money was targeted for that project; it wouldn’t have been attracted to something else. And some people, including Western reporters, have taken such an arrogant point of view towards all of this, seeing it as some “vast conspiracy” ... I say, step back and take a deep breath.

RL: We know that Moscow lost a large number of other churches in the Soviet era. Do you foresee more resurrections of churches in the future, or is there only so much Moscow can handle in terms of reconstruction?

WB: I think the latter is probably the case. Because there are so many churches that are only at the beginning stages of reconstruction. A lot of work has to be done. There have been demographic changes, so the church will have to look at the many new parts of the city it could support. There are also new areas without churches—their needs have to be met. So I don’t think you can even set it up as an ideal: “let’s rebuild every church that was destroyed in the 1930s.” And there were some priceless churches destroyed ...

RL: Any striking examples which could be rebuilt from scratch?

RL: I could cite half a dozen good examples. Like the Church of the Dormition on Pokrovka street. It was one of the greatest monuments of Russian architecture of the 17th century. Torn down. Destroyed. There is a vacant lot there. It’s like my Russian colleague, the architecture expert Alexei Komech said, “You go to Moscow and you see a vacant lot in the city center ... you know there was a church there ...” Whether or not they should be rebuilt is another issue. I will just observe this process.

RL: With enthusiasm or not?

WB: Whatever. I am here to document it. But, in many cases, even if the structure is rebuilt and even if the city regains something, the city has changed, the building scale has changed since then. That’s point number one. Point number two is that the interiors of these churches were in some ways the most valuable thing about them. And that’s lost, that’s gone. As far as new projects go ... you can see that Manezh square is working. It is a working concept ....

I can understand the view of my Russian colleagues who regard these big reconstruction projects as a human comedy. I can understand their sardonic wisdom:  never take anyone’s pretension at face value. For example, Alexei Komech can see through every claim made for those churches. And I respect that opinion.* But, at the same time, I say don’t become a, well ...

RL: A bigot?

WB: Exactly. Because it’s one thing when true professionals criticize it. But I also do see the arrogance of these amateurs, who become arrogantly critical, saying that this or that material should be used ...

RL: People of my generation have our own Moscow, like each of us does. But I have the impression that, for the younger generation, these new sites will become part of their Moscow. Take Manezh square, for instance. It is a popular venue for Russian teens. And I have seen young couples sitting on the benches near the rebuilt Savior’s Cathedral. Do you think the Cathedral will thus become an inalienable part of the city for younger Muscovites, who, frankly, may not be aware of all these politico-historical arguments?

WB: I think it will. And it is the latest part of an urban fabric which existed there at the beginning of the 20th century. Like most of the other buildings around there in fact. You can also name the new site at Poklonnaya Gora, but there the space is such that it really is a sort of skateboarders’ place, whereas here you have more realistic, urban life, with  people circulating and so forth. And you would see that type of life around major buildings in the center of Paris, for example. I think people will take this place in as a normal part of city life. There will be tour buses, there will be kiosks ...

RL: Do you think that the cathedral should be included in all classic tours of Moscow? Would you ultimately recommend it—as an expert in architecture—as a place that Americans should set as a must-see site?

WB: Oh yes, definitely. Because I think that, in terms of the interior art, they are probably reproducing the original more faithfully than in any other part of the building. And again, you must clearly define what monuments mean. They are much more complex things than we think ... they do not exist in some vacuum. They always must engage the city. And this site has become a major object of devotion for the Russian Orthodox Church. It is not simply a historical monument, it is a functioning part of Russian culture now.

I have been to church services there. And I find that there is a normal process of worship ... And I also like that it is not a part of the Kremlin, because rank and file parishioners can therefore enter it, and it’s good for them and for the church too. And it is even good for preservation purposes. If they made one of the Kremlin cathedrals the main cathedral of the country, with all of the television cameras and broadcast there ... that equipment can damage a historical environment. Now, with this large structure, you bring the stuff in, and it’s equipped for that. Which brings me back to my first point: that the Russian church, coming out of its years of captivity, wanted a large visible space, larger than any space currently available, to demonstrate the resurgence of the faith.

Our faith exists on many levels: the local level, the parish level ... But every church that I know of has a large place, whether it’s the Mormon or the Catholic Church. Take the National Cathedral in Washington. It’s a large, symbolic building. Why do those others have the right to this, but no, for some reason the Orthodox Church, has to go back and rebuild all of its parish churches? I would love to see that happen, actually. But, at the same time, if they want a large church, they have one.  RL

*Alexei Komech, director of the Russian Institute for Art Knowledge (Institut Iskusstvoznaniya), in a sarcastic article on the “new” architecture titled, “The End Result of New Spirituality,” called the cathedral “Savior on the Garages,” because of the underground garages built beneath the cathedral. Others have coined another popular nickname for the church. It is a wordplay on the family name of Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov (of which Luzhok would be a diminutive): “Khram Luzhka Spasitelya” (vs. the true name, Khram Khrista Spasitelya) – Cathedral of Luzhok the Savior.