Translation of General Human Experience by Architectural Spaces of St. Petersburg

The significance of the transmission of universal experience is extremely important, as this process implies not only the transfer of accumulated experience from the previous generation, but also the optimisation of those socially approved approaches to the organisation of human life activity in the conditions of society, which are behind the further development and formation of humanity. Nevertheless, various social, public and cultural processes differently affect the development of means of transmitting universal experience, thus not always becoming a condition for conflict-free further development. Culture is a set of sign-symbolic systems that accumulate the experience of existence in the form of ways of perception, thinking, cognition, experience and action, knowledge, values, methods and criteria for evaluation, standards, goals and meanings. Architectural spaces, being one of the most important forms of existence of culture, are also a way of generating, preserving and transferring the experience of a person and a community. The focus of this study is on the ways of broadcasting and retransmitting human experience in the urban space of St. Petersburg. St. Petersburg, thanks to various semiotic systems of different eras, is a translator of many verbal and non-verbal texts. The modern city is a complex semiotic mechanism, a generator and relay of culture, a collection of heterogeneous texts and codes. The semiotics of the architectural space of St. Petersburg makes it possible to identify a colossal set of signs and symbols that are present in the architecture and urbanism of the city and influence the perception and interpretation of its space. Today, architects and city planning officials are faced with the dilemma of how to properly integrate modern architecture into the multi-layered semiotic environment of the city. Achieving a synergetic interaction between different and largely opposing aesthetics requires from their spokespersons a high professional culture and understanding of the essence of each of the cultural layers of this unique architectural environment.

E.P. CHERNYSHOVA¹, Candidate of Sciences (Philosophy) (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.);
A.F. BURYANOV², Doctor of Sciences (Engineering) (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

¹ The Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, (48, Embankment of the Moika River, St. Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation)
² National Research Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (26, Yaroslavskoe Highway, Moscow, 129337, Russian Federation)

1. Chertov L.F. City in the semiosphere of culture: the semiotized space of St. Petersburg. Chelovek: Obraz i sushchnost’. Gumanitarnye aspekty. 2022. No. 1 (49), pp. 62–87. (In Russian).
2. Chernyshova E.P. Architecture as a material and spatial environment. Obshchestvo. Sreda. Razvitie. 2023. No. 1 (66), pp. 133–138. (In Russian). DOI 10.53115/19975996_2023_01_133-138.
3. Chernyshova E.P. The specifics of the perception of architecture from the standpoint of the current worldview of contemporaries. The symbolic capital of traditional culture: the experience of the past in models of the future: Proceedings of the II International Scientific and Practical Conference. Saransk, December 15–16, 2021. pp. 86–90. (In Russian).
4. Chernyshova E.P., Grigor’ev A.D., Slozhenikina N.S. Key means of translation of universal human sociocultural experience. Perspektivy nauki. 2021. No. 8 (143), pp. 70–73. (In Russian)
5. Dergacheva E.V. Social ontology of design in regional semiotic practices. ONV. 2013. No. 1 (115), pp. 78–83. (In Russian).
6. Aimermakher K. Znak. Tekst. Kul’tura [Sign. Text. Culture]. Moscow: House of Intellectual Books, 1997. 102 p.
7. Fedorov V.V. Symbolism of architectural spaces. Doctor Diss. of Cultural Studies. Moscow. 2000. 308 p. (In Russian).
8. Bueva L.P. Culture, cultural studies and education (materials of the “round table”). Voprosy filosofii. 1997. No. 2, pp. 13–14. (In Russian).
9. Vlasnikova M.A. Axiology of monuments of religious architecture and their preservation. Vestnik SPbGIK. 2019. No. 4 (41), pp. 38–43. (In Russian).
10. Kirikov B.M. Arhitektura Peterburga konca XIX – nachala XX veka: Jeklektika. Modern. Neoklassicizm [Architecture of Petersburg at the end of XIX – beginning of XX century: Eclecticism. Modern. Neoclassicism]. St. Petersburg: KOLO Publishing House. 2006. 448 p.
11. Zhirov A.N. Architecture of St. Petersburg. Fundamental’nye i prikladnye issledovaniya: problemy i rezul’taty. 2014. No. 13, pp. 9–11. (In Russian).
12. Filicheva N.V., Tsvetaeva M.N. Symbols of the “new religion” in the images of culture on the example of the Leningrad architectural constructivism. Vestnik RKhGA. 2021. No. 4–2, pp. 54–65. (In Russian)
13. Gegello A.I. Iz tvorcheskogo opyta: Vozniknovenie i razvitie arhitekturnogo zamysla. Institut teorii i istorii arhitektury ASiA SSSR [From creative experience: The emergence and development of an architectural idea. Institute of Theory and History of Architecture ASIA USSR]. Leningrad: State publishing house of literature on construction, architecture and building materials. 1962. 376 p.
14. Kurbatov Yu.I. Context of time and context of place – the inevitability of a compromise (to the problem of modern contextual architecture in the historical environment on the example of St. Petersburg). Academia. Arkhitektura i stroitel’stvo. 2014. No. 3, pp. 5–9. (In Russian).