Digging The Unwritten:

A Critical View On Armenian Modernism

In the wake of global interest towards Soviet modernism lately, Armenian modernism has got its own portion of attention. It’s being discussed and praised for its uniqueness. Indeed, it’s an interesting culturological phenomenon with a very tangled development story, and the public attitude towards it was always ambiguous.

The devastating earthquake of 88 became a crucial turning point for Armenian architecture and the culture as a whole. In the context of the collapsing empire and the rise of nationalist sentiments in the society the huge trauma triggered a visible shift in architectural discourse. Modernist architecture was considered as one of the symbols of the late soviet era, something alien. Fueled by these sentiments, very much in the logic of Vladimir Paperny’s seminal work, Armenian architecture entered the “Culture 2”, mutated and populist historicism backed by the uncontrolled capitalism of the first decade of independence shaped the Yerevan we witness today.

The next turning point we consider 2007, the opening year of Northern Avenue, the architectural symbol of the era. The controversial project triggered a kind of nostalgia for the “golden era” of Armenian modernism. Public attention towards the architectural heritage of the 60’s-80’s period began to rise and be noticeable in 2010, when the jewel of the era, the “Moscow” Cinema Open Air Hall was meant to be demolished to make room for a new church.The decision faced a strong public backlash.

Suddenly, in opposition to “Northern Avenue”-ish architecture, modernism became a subject of cherishment, although some of the biggest names of Armenian modernism were actively involved in shaping the post-independence style, a phenomenon that we see as a big contradiction.

Many books and magazine publications were written on the matter, nostalgically glorifying and romanticizing the architecture of the “golden era”, spanning from the thaw to mid 80’s, and their respective authors.

Ok, cool !- we say - But where’s the criticism? Where’s the theory? Was there an ideology that shaped Armenian modernism? We have some serious suspicions that the answer is “NO”. Did they believe in what they were doing, or was it just a visual imitation of western architecture dictated by the seeming freedom of the thaw?

It’d be fair to say that historicism has never really left the post-stalinist Armenian architecture, or it did so for a short period of time in the mid 60’s. It was always there, the romantic revival of the “glorious past”. Isn’t it contradicting the very essence of modernism? We think it does.

Medieval ornamental motives, arches, bas reliefs, the choice of materials of some revered modernist buildings had always triggered contradicting feelings. Was it an attempt to localize the international style? Probably yes, but we’d dare to say that it's a very superficial attitude. Was it a fear “to lose the national identity”, to be dissolved and vanish in the globalized culture? These fears are still present in Armenian culture, they have very deep roots. Despite the glorification of Armenian modernism in recent years it is still widely marginalized and ignored by the majority. Modernism is still something alien. It seems like we, as a society, do not digest modernism and we feel that it’s time to talk about it.

There was (and still is) an ideological and theoretical void in Armenian architecture. There are no theoretical texts on the subject, and through the time it became a kind of taboo, something unnecessary. Except some memories of contemporaries from their informal conversations we know nothing about the motifs and ideas of the prominent architects of the era. “Architect’s buildings should speak for themselves” they said. And again we’d dare to say that they speak indistinctly.

Some architects probably were exposed to the ideas of their western peers through some bits and scratches of theoretical texts leaked through the iron curtain. But it was certainly not enough to have a serious impact on the architectural discourse.

This theoretical void continues to impact the new generation of emerging architects in Armenia. The “Third Wave of Modernism”, as Karen Balyan labels it (including us) seems even more superficial than the “Second Wave”.

Our month will be dedicated to digging the unwritten motifs of Armenian modernism, discussing the above mentioned concerns, analyzing, writing and questioning. As a target for our architectural investigation we chose three buildings: “HayArt Modern Art Museum”, architect Jim Torosyan, “National Centre of Chamber Music”, architect Stepan Qyurkchyan and “The Hovhannes Tumanyan Puppet Theatre”, architect Margarita Hayrapetyan.

These are neither the biggest, nor the most famous examples of Armenian modernism, but rather the most compelling to the subject of our suspicions and interests.

The final aim is to articulate the contradictions in a textual form and, hopefully, to compile an editorial zine.