“It seems to me that these are very difficult times,” said Konstantin Arkadyevich, “very dangerous, very terrible; it looks very similar ... I will not say what. But you understand. We need to unite very strongly together and very clearly resist this.”
Just like in Harry Potter, it looks like you-know-what happened because of you-know-who. In a word: "let's join hands, friends, so as not to disappear one by one"!
What worries and makes Konstantin Raikin tremble with fear?
As it turned out - "assaults on art." The raids are “completely lawless, extremist, impudent, aggressive, hiding behind words about morality, about morality, and in general with all sorts of, so to speak, good and lofty words: “patriotism”, “Motherland” and “high morality””.
Moreover, these raids are carried out by “groups of allegedly offended people” who “close performances, close exhibitions, behave very brazenly” and at the same time “the authorities are somehow very strangely neutral - they distance themselves” towards them.
Those. some arrogant creatures do not appreciate high art, they try to fight it, while the authorities are very suspiciously sitting with their hands folded and none of these creatures is enough, they don’t handcuff them, they don’t twist their arms, they don’t drag them into dark basements , and high art from the rebellious boor does not harrow machine gunners. Distance, in a word.
From the point of view of Konstantin Arkadyevich, these are “ugly encroachments on the freedom of creativity, on the prohibition of censorship.” And the ban on censorship (“the centuries-old disgrace of our national culture, our art in general”) is the best thing that has happened in the last 25 years.
It is clear that for a creative person, any attack on her creations is a manifestation of the greatest evil. Notice how bitterly a small child cries in the sandbox when another cynically steps on his sandbox. But great art is not sandboxes, it is a manifestation of the highest human freedom! Freedom of artistic creativity!
And then some creator sculpts his highly artistic "pasochka", puts it on public display, and then boors suddenly appear, hiding behind words about morality, morality, patriotism and the Motherland, and begin to trample this cherished "pasochka" with their dirty boots. And the authorities at the same time do not blow their heads out of machine guns. Power mockingly distances itself.
Konstantin Arkadyevich knows that "words about morality, the Motherland and the people, and patriotism, as a rule, cover very low goals." The head of the Satyricon Theater does not believe "these groups of indignant and offended people, whose religious feelings, you see, have been offended." "I do not believe! he exclaims. I believe they are paid. So it's a bunch of nasty people who are fighting in illegal nasty ways for morality, you see."
According to Raikin, “general public organizations do not need to fight for morality in art. Art has enough filters from directors, art directors, critics, the soul of the artist himself. They are the bearers of morality. There is no need to pretend that power is the only bearer of morality and morality. This is wrong".
Judging by the last phrase, Konstantin Arkadyevich is deeply convinced that it is the authorities who are fighting art, the authorities want to return censorship, the authorities send their vile, paid hirelings in dirty boots to the creative intelligentsia so that they cynically trample and pour urine on the "pasochki" of great art .
In a word, we are talking about what now "you-know-who" wants to return back "not just in times of stagnation, but even in more ancient times - in Stalin's times."
For Raikin, the Russian government is an enemy that is trying to “bend” art to suit its own interests, small specific ideological interests. No more no less.
From the point of view of Konstantin Arkadyevich, “smart power pays art for the fact that art holds a mirror in front of it and shows in this mirror the mistakes, miscalculations and vices of this power. And the authorities are not paying for that, as our leaders tell us: “And then you do it. We pay you money, you do what you need to do.” Who knows? Will they know what to do? Who will tell us? Now I hear: “These are values that are alien to us. It's bad for the people." Who decides? Will they decide? They shouldn't interfere at all. They should help art, culture.”
Those. the authorities are obliged to support the creators and their great art at the expense of the people's money, while protecting it from the people (who understand nothing about art), and do not get into this art with their rough hands and stupid brains, because art is a sphere of subtle matters.
In general, I can understand Raikin's desperate cry. Creative people really do not like it when someone does not understand their work, does not accept it, and even more so protests against it. True, it is not entirely clear why in a free, civil society, some citizens have the right to create and carry their creations to the masses, while other citizens do not have the right to react to these creations at their own discretion. Indeed, for some, a certain product of art is nothing more than urine, which is periodically poured over those who produced this product.
What, someone has special authority to separate art from urine? How, for example, is Raikin's opinion about the work of the American photographer Jock Sturges more correct than the opinion of ordinary Ivanov, who sees pornography in this work? And why does this Ivanov not have the right, based on his ideas about art and morality, to demand the closure of the Sturges exhibition?
Konstantin Arkadievich is bustling when he declares that the creators themselves are "filters" and "bearers of morality." The fact is that art is very often outside the framework of morality and even outside the framework of morality, because it claims to have absolute freedom of expression, and also claims to have certain truths that are "beyond good and evil." This is the essence of art as such. Especially postmodern art.
But the problem is that not every person can calmly perceive art beyond the framework of its inherent morality and morality. And here an antagonistic contradiction arises, which Raikin, due to his psychological characteristics and belonging to art, does not see point-blank.
Therefore, from his point of view, if art contradicts someone's morality and morality, then to hell with this morality and morality! You give absolute freedom of creativity! And I don't care if this work offends someone! Get lost. Survive.
Well, to make it easier to perceive those who disagree with the radical manifestations of contemporary art, Konstantin Arkadyevich looks at them as corrupt hirelings of "you-know-who." Here, by the way, the traditional liberal attitude works, when anyone who does not agree with the liberal doctrine is automatically recorded as the corrupt creatures of the Kremlin. From the perspective of a liberal, there are only liberals (smart, free and beautiful) and servants of you-know-who. There is no third. Liberals do not believe in the existence of people who sincerely think differently than liberals. A liberal, in principle, cannot imagine that someone can be a non-liberal, while not being a slave to you-know-who.
Raikin thinks in a similar way. From his point of view, an intelligent, educated and decent person cannot oppose the absolute freedom of art, even if this art is a naked butt in a frame, a scrotum nailed to a pavement or a photo exhibition of “ATO heroes” with the blood of old people, women and children.
In addition, arguing that someone “wants to bend art to the interests of power”, “small specific ideological interests”, and thereby declaring that art is beyond any ideology, Konstantin Arkadyevich is either cunning or frankly stupid.
The reality is that any art, one way or another, is within the rigid framework of one ideology or another. Any picture, poem, novel, play, film or piece of music carries some idea, thereby becoming part of some kind of ideology. Art is impossible without ideology. Another thing is that ideologies are different, and not necessarily political. Ideological art is not only an art exhibition of paintings dedicated to Lenin, but also a photo exhibition of naked nymphets by American photographer Jock Sturges or a dance in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior by the punk band Pussy Riot. In each case, there is an ideology, which contains a certain idea, meaning and purpose.
And here we come to the most important thing: art is a form of ideological and psychological influence on human consciousness. Therefore, this or that manifestation of art can be either constructive (creative) or destructive (destructive) for public consciousness, culture, society, state. In this regard, the state and society cannot completely distance themselves from art if they do not want to be under the destructive/destructive ideological and psychological influence of certain manifestations of art.
Therefore, only a fool or a sociopath can call for the complete elimination of all forms of censorship. For a creative person who has irretrievably gone into the “astral plane” of his artistic impulses, any infringement of freedom of creativity is an absolute evil, and for society it is a form of self-preservation and survival. And if censorship suddenly completely disappears, there is a high probability that society will simply be pushed out of the scope of any morality and morality by the creative impulses of crazy individuals, which will inevitably lead this society to decay and self-destruction. History knows many such examples.
I am very sorry that Konstantin Arkadievich has not yet understood that censorship, in one form or another, has existed and exists in any society and state. Including in the West. For all the seeming liberalism of Western countries, they have a strict state and public censorship that applies to all types and forms of creation and dissemination of ideas, including those related to art.
Another thing is that the bridge-modernist morality prevailing in the West is in many ways very different from our traditional morality. And those figures of Russian art who are oriented towards the Western, postmodern idea of morality automatically come into conflict with Russian traditional morality, perceiving it as state and public “censorship”. Hence the fear of Konstantin Raikin. After all, he sees what is not, and does not see what is.
In fact, the conflict is not between art and censorship, as it seems to him, but between two incompatible moralities on which Western and Russian society is based.
09:35 02.11.2016 | HOT TOPIC
The story of Konstantin Raikin, who threw a tantrum at the congress of theatrical figures, with the accusation of the Ministry of Culture and public organizations of reviving censorship, may take an unexpected turn for Raikin Jr.
On November 1, pickets were held in a number of large Russian cities against the imposition of vulgarity in art, and a petition appeared on the Internet demanding that Raikin be held accountable for promoting homosexuality.
Pickets with anti-Raikin slogans took place today in Moscow, near the Satyricon Theater and the Moscow Art Theater School, in St. Petersburg on Malaya Sadovaya Street, and in Novosibirsk near the same Opera House where Tannhäuser was shown a year ago. The organizer of all actions was the public movement “Strategy”, whose goal is to defend the values laid down in the National Security Strategy approved by the President. According to one of the coordinators of this movement, Anatoly Artyukh, “Raikin has declared open war on our traditional values, the entire Russian culture and, in fact, the President, who since 2013 has been demanding the creation of a moral code for theater and cinema figures, but his orders are grossly ignored by the figures anti-cultures like Raikin, because it is profitable for them to earn money on outright vulgarity and propaganda of perversions. In December 2015, the President signed the National Security Strategy, which proclaims the priority of the spiritual over the material and the protection of our traditional values from people like Raikin, whose play “All Shades of Blue” is a vivid illustration of how propaganda of pederasty and other abominations is imposed under the guise of creative freedom ".
At the same time, it became known that a petition appeared on the Internet on the Change.org website demanding that Konstantin Raikin be brought to administrative responsibility under Article 6.21 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for promoting non-traditional sexual relations among minors in connection with the production of the play "All Shades of Blue". By the way, this performance continues to be in the repertoire of Raikin's theater "Satyricon", despite the protests of the public.
Photo of the performance "All Shades of Blue" by the Satyricon Theater
Also, the authors of the petition call to stop funding the Satyricon Theater from the state budget due to the latter’s gross violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation, and to check the legality of allocating a land plot for the construction of the Raikin Plaza shopping center as part of the activities of the Arkady Raikin Center for Culture, Arts and Leisure ".
Although the hope of initiating a case against Raikin is not great (government agencies are not obliged to respond to petitions posted on American websites), and money has already been promised to the son of the great Soviet artist, the current actions of social activists may gradually change the alignment of forces not at all in favor of Raikin. And it's not just pickets or threats from the head of the Night Wolves, Alexander Zaldostanov (Surgeon), who, as Katyusha has already reported, refused to apologize to Raikin, despite the insistent recommendation of Dmitry Peskov, press secretary of the President. The fact is that the tactics of Raikin and his like, who feed us with their vulgar handicrafts and are sure that we are obliged to consume them and admire them, have tired not only the public, but also clearly do not fit into the President's Strategy.
And let's go back to Konstantin Raikin's already scandalous speech at the seventh congress of the Union of Theater Workers of Russia, in which he spoke about the very difficult, very dangerous and very terrible times that have come in Russia. However, the performance of K. Raikin became scandalous. It is also significant, because it marks a kind of watershed between two approaches to culture and morality.
And after him, the question is quite appropriate: what figures of culture and art should the state support?
From the point of view of the head of the theater "Satyricon", Russian life has become terrible and terrible. This is no longer even life, but sheer flour.
“It seems to me that these are very difficult times,” said Konstantin Arkadyevich, “very dangerous, very terrible; it looks very similar ... I won’t say what. But you understand. We need to unite together very strongly and very clearly to rebuff this.”
Just like in Harry Potter, it looks like you-know-what happened because of you-know-who. In a word, "let's join hands, friends, so as not to disappear one by one"!
What worries and makes Konstantin Raikin tremble with fear?
As it turned out - "assaults on art." The raids are “completely lawless, extremist, impudent, aggressive, hiding behind words about morality, about morality, and in general with all sorts of, so to speak, good and lofty words: ‘patriotism’, ‘Motherland’ and ‘high morality’.”
Moreover, these raids are carried out by “groups of allegedly offended people” who “close performances, close exhibitions, behave very brazenly” and at the same time “the authorities are somehow very strangely neutral - they distance themselves”.
That is, some arrogant creatures do not appreciate high art, they try to fight it, while the authorities are very suspiciously sitting idly by and none of these creatures is enough, they don’t handcuff them, they don’t twist their hands into dark he doesn’t drag cellars, and high art doesn’t harrow with submachine gunners from an insurgent boor. Distance, in a word.
From the point of view of Konstantin Arkadievich, this is “an ugly encroachment on the freedom of creativity, on the prohibition of censorship.” And the ban on censorship (“the centuries-old disgrace of our national culture in general, our art”) is the best thing that has happened in the last 25 years.
It is clear that for a creative person, any attack in the direction of her creations is a manifestation of the greatest evil. Notice how bitterly a small child cries in the sandbox when another cynically steps on his sandbox. But great art is not sandboxes, it is a manifestation of the highest human freedom! Freedom of artistic creativity!
And then some creator sculpts his highly artistic "pasochka", puts it on public display, and then boors suddenly appear, hiding behind words about morality, morality, patriotism and the Motherland, and begin to trample this cherished "pasochka" with their dirty boots. And the authorities at the same time do not blow their heads out of machine guns. Power mockingly distances itself.
Konstantin Arkadyevich knows that "words about morality, the Motherland and the people, and patriotism, as a rule, cover very low goals." The head of the Satyricon Theater does not believe "these groups of indignant and offended people, whose religious feelings, you see, have been offended." "I do not believe! he exclaims. I believe they are paid. So it's a bunch of nasty people who are fighting in illegal nasty ways for morality, you see."
According to Raikin, “general public organizations do not need to fight for morality in art. Art has enough filters from directors, art directors, critics, the soul of the artist himself. They are the bearers of morality. There is no need to pretend that power is the only carrier of morality and morality. This is wrong".
Judging by the last phrase, Konstantin Arkadyevich is deeply convinced that it is the authorities who are fighting art, the authorities want to return censorship, the authorities send their vile, paid hirelings in dirty boots to the creative intelligentsia so that they cynically trample and pour urine on the "pasochki" of great art .
In a word, we are talking about what now "you-know-who" wants to return back "not just in times of stagnation, but even in more ancient times - in Stalin's times."
For Raikin, the Russian government is an enemy that is trying to "bend" art to suit its own interests, small specific ideological interests. No more no less.
From the point of view of Konstantin Arkadyevich, “smart power pays art for the fact that art holds a mirror in front of it and shows in this mirror the mistakes, miscalculations and vices of this power. And the authorities are not paying for that, as our leaders tell us: “And then you do it. We pay you money, you do what you need to do.” Who knows? Will they know what to do? Who will tell us? Now I hear: “These are values that are alien to us. It's bad for the people." Who decides? Will they decide? They shouldn't interfere at all. They should help art, culture.”
That is, the authorities are obliged to support the creators and their great art at the expense of the people's money, while protecting it from the people (who understand nothing about art), and do not get into this art with their rough hands and stupid brains, because art is a sphere of subtle matters.
In general, I can understand Raikin's desperate cry. Creative people really do not like it when someone does not understand their work, does not accept it, and even more so protests against it. True, it is not entirely clear why in a free, civil society, some citizens have the right to create and carry their creations to the masses, while other citizens do not have the right to react to these creations at their own discretion. Indeed, for some, a certain product of art is nothing more than urine, which is periodically poured over those who produced this product.
What, someone has special authority to separate art from urine? How, for example, is Raikin's opinion about the work of the American photographer Jock Sturges more correct than the opinion of ordinary Ivanov, who sees pornography in this work? And why does this Ivanov not have the right, based on his ideas about art and morality, to demand the closure of the Sturges exhibition?
Konstantin Arkadievich is bustling when he declares that the creators themselves are "filters" and "bearers of morality." The fact is that art is very often outside the framework of morality and even outside the framework of morality, because it claims to have absolute freedom of expression, and also claims to have certain truths that are "beyond good and evil." This is the essence of art as such. Especially postmodern art.
But the problem is that not every person can calmly perceive art beyond the framework of its inherent morality and morality. And here an antagonistic contradiction arises, which Raikin, due to his psychological characteristics and belonging to art, point-blank does not see.
Therefore, from his point of view, if art contradicts someone's morality and morality, then to hell with this morality and morality! You give absolute freedom of creativity! And I don't care if this work offends someone! Get lost. Survive.
Well, to make it easier to perceive those who disagree with the radical manifestations of contemporary art, Konstantin Arkadyevich looks at them as corrupt hirelings of "you-know-who." Here, by the way, the traditional liberal attitude works, when anyone who does not agree with the liberal doctrine is automatically recorded as the corrupt creatures of the Kremlin.
From the perspective of a liberal, there are only liberals (smart, free and beautiful) and servants of you-know-who. There is no third. Liberals do not believe in the existence of people who sincerely think differently than liberals.
A liberal, in principle, cannot imagine that someone can be a non-liberal, while not being a slave to you-know-who.
Raikin thinks in a similar way. From his point of view, a smart, educated and decent person cannot oppose the absolute freedom of art, even if this art is a naked butt in a frame, a scrotum nailed to the pavement or a photo exhibition of “heroes of the ATO”, on whose hands the blood of old people, women and children.
In addition, arguing that someone “wants to bend art to the interests of power”, “small specific ideological interests”, and thereby declaring that art is beyond any ideology, Konstantin Arkadyevich is either cunning or frankly stupid.
The reality is that any art, one way or another, is within the rigid framework of one ideology or another. Any picture, poem, novel, play, film or piece of music carries some idea, thereby becoming part of some kind of ideology.
Art is impossible without ideology. Another thing is that ideologies are different, and not necessarily political.
Ideological art is not only an art exhibition of paintings dedicated to Lenin, but also a photo exhibition of naked nymphets by American photographer Jock Sturges or a dance in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior by the punk band Pussy Riot. In each case, there is an ideology, which contains a certain idea, meaning and purpose.
And here we come to the most important thing: art is a form of ideological and psychological influence on human consciousness. Therefore, this or that manifestation of art can be either constructive (creative) or destructive (destructive) for public consciousness, culture, society, state.
In this regard, the state and society cannot completely distance themselves from art if they do not want to be under the destructive/destructive ideological and psychological influence of certain manifestations of art.
Therefore, only a fool or a sociopath can call for the complete elimination of all forms of censorship. For a creative person who has irretrievably gone into the "astral plane" of his artistic impulses, any infringement of freedom of creativity is an absolute evil, and for society it is a form of self-preservation and survival.
And if censorship suddenly completely disappears, there is a high probability that society will simply be pushed out of the scope of any morality and morality by the creative impulses of crazy individuals, which will inevitably lead this society to decay and self-destruction. History knows many such examples.
Resign Minister! This is the first thing you can habitually shout when you hear to deal with Medinsky. Painfully many claims have accumulated among creative people who can neither breathe nor gasp in the framework of his conservative ideas and the partisan distribution of public money. But in the next minute, the question arises: why did the scandal, which had subsided, resume right now? After all, a year ago, when the artist flared up with anti-censorship indignation, he quickly subsided. Although the hints and suspicions that rained down on Raikin from the pages of odious publications only strengthened the desire to sort out this matter without anger and predilection.
The history of the transformation of the Satyricon Theater began 12 years ago and was captured in letters and documents from 1999 to 2017. Participants and addressees of the correspondence - V.V. Putin, D.A. Medvedev, V.I. Matvienko, M.E. Shvydkoy and others. The main content is the creation of the Arkady Raikin Center for Culture, Art and Leisure. The Satyricon Theater and the Higher School of Performing Arts - K. Raikin Theater School were responsible for art in this project, and the shopping mall, restaurant, apartments, hotel and parking were responsible for leisure. The total area of the complex as a result of several additional agreements has grown to 47 thousand square meters. The prospect is excellent, no matter how you look at it: for residents - a culturally ennobled area, for artists - new opportunities to strengthen the glory of the Satyricon.
But everything went in a different scenario. While the artistic director was taking care of the students, staging performances, preparing roles, the director was building a business project in which the interests of the theater greatly pressed the personal interests of its leaders.
Here are just a few figures behind which there is a long struggle with various departments. According to the investment contract, after the reconstruction, 12,000 sq. meters of a building worth at least 650 million rubles. According to the results of the agreement, the investor gets 74% of the total area of the complex - more than 34.7 thousand square meters. m.
By decision of the competition committee, the investor was Art-Invest LLC, co-owned by the director of Satyricon Anatoly Polyankin (25%) and artistic director Konstantin Raikin (25%). (At first they owned 50% each, but then half was transferred to Progress LLC.) Thus, the Satyricon Theater signed an investment contract with a company owned by the theater management.
A big swing turned into a long-term construction. The terms were extended three times - first for three years, then for another four. When they also passed, a new one appeared - August 2019. It must be said that the Satyricon leadership did not make these decisions alone. Additional agreements that stretched the construction of the new stage for a decade were regularly signed by the officials of the Federal Property Management Agency.
Photo: Victoria Odissonova / Novaya Gazeta
But not the Ministry of Culture. Now it insists that the decision to demolish the old building in connection with the reconstruction was made by the theater management independently. Nevertheless, all these years the ministry provided the theater with budgetary support. Perhaps this would have continued further if Konstantin Raikin had not come to the current minister, who is well versed in real estate prices, to demand an increase in the subsidy for the rent of Planet KVN, where performances of the destroyed Satyricon have been going on for two years.
The theater management chose this site without the participation of the Ministry of Culture. Officials report that in the last two years alone, more than 130 million budget rubles have been spent on rent, and the construction of the theater itself, in fact, has not yet begun. According to the terms of the investment contract, fines are imposed for violation of the construction deadlines, but for all this time the theater management has not even presented any claims to the investor - and this is another argument of the Ministry of Culture.
The ministry insists that Raikin and Polyankin refuse to participate in Art-Invest, eliminating the conflict of interest, and the transfer of their shares to management by them is not a solution to the problem. According to SPARK (a company verification system that allows you to get all the necessary information about the counterparty in real time. - Ed.), The artistic director and director of Satyricon still have 25% each.
The editors sent questions to director Anatoly Polyankin, hoping to get his point of view and clarify the situation. But no answers were received. Konstantin Raikin, whose signature is next to Polyankin's signature on appeals to various authorities, also kept silent.
In such a situation, it remains only to believe the figures of the ministry, which testify to the lowest attendance at the Satyricon among federal theaters (46.6–52%) until 2016, and loyally explain them by the absence of new productions that are impossible under the current conditions.
It is possible that the presidential grant allocated to Satyricon for 2018 can help, but it is unlikely to extinguish the conflict - presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov said that the grant does not mean the Kremlin will support the theater in the dispute with Medinsky.
Not even in a dispute, but in an obvious confrontation, since there is no dispute as such. Raikin speaks of harassment by the minister, without explaining that he refuses to increase the subsidy for the rent of Planet KVN from 68 million in 2017 to 100 million in 2018. The minister, usually generous with numbers, refrains from counting the millions spent on the Satyricon, since the figure of two hundred million annual subsidies, equal to spending on all the children's theaters in the country, is unlikely to suit his bosses, oppressed by a growing budget deficit.
Behind the veil of this silence, a terrible future looms - the suspension (at best) of the theater's activities. Talking about possible litigation is not our business. Our task is to understand: what prompted Raikin, not the most desperate human rights activist, to go on the warpath with the ministry. After all, the long-term solution of pressing issues in the silence of the office, apparently, was more effective than public demarches. Genuine outrage at what's going on in the culture blew the fuses? Tired of being silent and submitting?
And here other painful questions arise. Who has the right to raise their voice in public space? Who can discuss the problems of morality, public and personal ethics? Who can resist the hail of suspicion? More precisely, whose call "for good against bad" will reach the consciousness of the masses, who have rejected moral authorities and are clearly opposed to "fattening" in creative spaces? After all, those stoned by the TV will not go to Konstantin Raikin's bewitching one-man performance "An Evening with Dostoevsky", made for him by Valery Fokin, but they will definitely put an expensive unfinished construction on the line.
In fact, Medinsky's call to Raikin to decide who he is - a director or a businessman, should not be addressed to him. It would be good for the state, thoughtlessly giving the right of economic signature to the financially untrained, economically illiterate, to reconsider its policy. After all, the case of Kirill Serebrennikov, who combined artistic and managerial talents, is unique. Therefore, it is not surprising that so many people stood up for him and for the Gogol Center he transformed. Without this attractive space, it is already difficult for many to imagine the cultural field of the capital. And no court reports will cancel the merits of its organizer.
The construction of the new Satyricon has no end in sight. So what should the public protect in the battle of business entities? Great theatrical family? She doesn't need protection. A surname turned into a trademark?
In Vera Panova's story "Serezha", a man hands a small boy a candy wrapped in gold. He impatiently deploys it, but there is nothing there. Seryozha raises his eyes to the laughing fool: “Uncle Petya, are you a fool?” ...
And the cultural community will certainly respond to the call to reason with the minister.
QUESTIONS TO ANATOLY POLYANKIN
Director of the theater "Satyricon" Polyankin A.E.
Dear Anatoly Evseevich!
In connection with the preparation of the material, the editors of Novaya Gazeta about the reconstruction of the Satirikon Theater building ask you to answer the following questions:
- In your speech on November 13, you said that the prosecutor's office came to the theater "Satyricon" six times a year with checks. Could you explain whether these inspections were of a planned nature, what was their result?
- Could you explain why the postponement of the reconstruction of the theater building is connected?
- Please tell us which companies were considered as an investor for the reconstruction of the theater building? Could you explain if the project now has investors and who they are?
- Could you provide the editors with the investment contract dated April 21, 2006 No. 01-11-49 for the implementation of the investment project upon completion of the construction of an unfinished construction object - an extension to the existing theater building?
- Please let us know when the construction is planned to be completed?
- Could you explain on what basis the decision to destroy the old theater building was made without the consent of the Ministry of Culture?
- Do you consider it a conflict of interest to combine management positions in the theater with a stake in Art-Invest LLC, which acts as a contractor for competitions held for the needs of the theater?
- According to Novaya Gazeta, the Ministry of Culture was recommended to take measures to resolve the issue by alienating a stake in Art-Invest LLC. Could you explain why this was not done?
- Could you explain what justified the choice of the IMC "Planet KVN" and "Higher School of Performing Arts" as venues for theater performances? Please provide the editorial staff with a justification for the costs for choosing the specified site.
