Architecture may be unhealthy

Videoecology explains why megapolis dwellers prefer looking at the ground

“What building can you look at for a longer time – the Kosmos ho­tel or the Bolshoi theatre?” asks professor Vasily Filin, head of the Moscow Center of Video­ecology. The answer is obvious. Experts of the Video­ecology Center, however, provide a theoretical basis for the answer. In their words, it’s not just by chance that everyone usu­ally averts one’s eyes from the gray monster. The instinct of self-preservation makes us do it as soon as possible.

Some time ago a problem of ‘visual hunger’ was relevant just for miners and polar explorers. Today, many people living in plain and unsightly streets of big cities experience the same diffi­culties. Large bare surfaces, right angles, absence of curves, multi­tude of similar elements, monot­ony and sameness in architec­ture, even the extended straight lines of roofs, are the risk factors. Contemplation of gray feature­less constructions not only sup­presses the mind but damages eyesight.

“This can be easily explained from the physiological point of view,” videoecologists believe. “The eye is the most dynamic sense organ. It constantly scans the environment. Normally, it makes two or more movements a second to fix on details. Looking at homogeneous surfaces causes tension as the receptors start working in a much more rapid, almost frantic regime – there are no elements to fix upon. So a homogeneous video environment is bad for eyes. Now you understand why megapolis dwellers prefer looking at the ground. It doesn’t help much, though.”

Supporters of the new scientific direction regard constructivist buildings as ‘vampires’. One of the most videoecologically dan­gerous places in Moscow is Oktyabrskaya Square. A great number of similar dummy joints create an “aggressive field.” The same situation belies Novy Arbat. It is not by accident that Muscovites dubbed this ungainly street ‘false teeth.’ Uncom­fortable visual environments surround dwellers and visitors of the gray Varshavskoye Shosse and the majority of distant ‘sleeping districts.’ Where can we escape visual hun­ger? Mainly in old quarters, where the ‘sound’ picture is only spoiled by mon­s­ters like the Federation Council in Bolshaya Dmitrovka or Rossiya hotel near Red Square.

“Our forefathers constructed beautiful buildings relying on intuition. Now people trust only science. Videoecology provides a scientific basis for architectural aesthetics. We can test any pro­ject: Looking at true beauty demands no tension of the eyes,” says Filin.

However, there are examples of newly erected buildings in Moscow that can be considered videoecologically sound. The Maryino district is relatively comfortable in terms of its visual impact. Color solutions of the panel buildings are different there. Moreover, the architects managed to avoid ‘tyranny of the straight line’. Towers, spires, arches and other elements help eyes. Videoeco­lo­gysts give a recipe of a sound construction: Architectural excesses are good for the health.

“Few people have realized the importance of videoecological problems in major cities. In Moscow new architectural mon­sters have recently appeared near Timiryazevskaya metro sta­tion, and the authorities are planning to continue construct­ing harmful skyscrapers,” Vasily Filin complains. “In less videoe­colo­gically stressful cities like Kostroma and Nizhni Novgorod videoecology experts are mem­bers of the city planning councils and any decisions about new buildings are taken after consul­tations with them. Our research shows that 72% of Muscovites would like to move to another district. It is something to reflect on.”

Antonina Frolenkova

The Moscow News 13/09/2007