Natalia Abalakova

Then, in the 80s, these two statements of TOTART artists caused much less talk than, for example, artistic activity group "Amanita" and other participants of the event (N. Alekseev, Skersis-Zakharov, M. Roshal, A. Monastyrsky, G. Kizevalter, N. Panitkov, L. Rubinshtey, S. Anufriev).

This was due to the fact that most of the active participants in the APTART exhibitions did not have a "painting past", and the problem of the language of Russian art as a dynamic text, the renewal of which is one with its erasure, has not yet been considered. On the contrary, young artists tried in every possible way to emphasize their break with the art of the 60s and 70s and to enter new frontiers. The "Art Belongs" project, on the contrary, raised questions other than a simple jump to another "conceptual" paradigm, and therefore was simply not counted. He represented language (including art) as a kind of totality, power, the discourse of this power, its totalitarian aspect.

All this indicated that there was an urgent need for a language capable of translating accumulated or still emerging problems.

Divine darkness of the mysterious Russian soul. Aspects of the deep-myth of the era cold war

An attempt to read any text of culture is an attempt to destroy it, to elevate it to own essence to original purity. M. Blanchot, K. Greenberg, H. Bloom wrote about this. (“A hungry cat ate a kid. A dog came and bit the cat. A stick came and killed the dog. Fire came and burned the stick,” as it is sung in the Easter fairy tale-song Had-Gadya, illustrated by El Lissitzky.)

Therefore, both a simple description of the 1960s, their eventful side, and an attempt to create an analytical construction seem extremely difficult, since in the analysis this subject, and with simple recall various events and facts, it turns out that it is simply impossible to build any "logocentrically" acceptable structure. After all, at first glance it seems that nothing precedes anything, and because of this, misreading cannot take place, because everything exists simultaneously.

The cultural policy of the Cold War partly influenced the interpreters of the period of the 60s and 70s, who reduced all the problems of art of that time to the confrontation between the official and the unofficial, and declared the context itself (our present reality) to be a place of evil, trauma, fractal and chaos, in a word, a black hole. where anything can happen. Of course, life at that time gave every reason for this.

Persecution, total control, psychiatric hospitals(partly at that time became the topos of independent culture) - all this, taken together, for many researchers of Russian art from the West (which for us was as much a mirror as we are its "subconscious") world. Western intellectuals rushed to this world, wishing to realize and, perhaps, feel in existential experience their idea of ​​themselves as carriers and collectors of genuine culture(avant-garde), on the one hand, and researchers of the official (kitsch) culture, on the other. Both that, and another represented the richest field of activity. Even recently released joint editions and catalogs contain a number of articles, where this period is described as deep - depressive and not conducive to the prosperity of "genuine art".

However, when referring to the memoirs of artists (whom the Western media of that time in most cases presented as suffering martyrs), the picture of their existence turns out to be somewhat different - especially the specific facts contained in these materials (and we are now only interested in them). In Moscow in the 1960s there was a stormy artistic life. Practically all memoirs describe the interest with which representatives of the artistic environment treated each other's work, how "schools", groups and "circles" were formed. Many cultural figures who returned from the Stalinist camps were drawn into this process, which favored their further personal and creative development, especially since among them were "native speakers", that is, people who participated in the project of the Russian avant-garde. It is impossible not to note the activities of Nikolai Ivanovich Khardzhiev and the employees of the Mayakovsky Museum, who used every opportunity to promote Russian art 1910-1920s, arranging theme nights and one-day exhibitions. Absolutely amazing is the energy of artists who managed to make exhibitions in private apartments and in all kinds of academic campuses, research institutes and clubs. Surprisingly, the appearance in this miserable communal life of people who tried to collect modern art. And, finally, it is necessary to say about those who aspired to become interpreters and propagandists of Russian art in the West. Diplomats showed an interest in art and communication with artists, but one should not think that these were the only foreigners with whom artists communicated at that time. Diplomats were sold paintings, but more important was communication with Eastern European artists, critics and exhibition organizers, among whom were I. Chalupetsky, D. Konecni, J. Shetlik, M. Varosh, L. Kara, R. Dubrants, C. Kafka, M Lamac, I. Padrta, K. Kuklik, M. Klivar and others. These people were welcome guests among Moscow artists. By virtue of their common fate, they understood our problems better: their countries were occupied by Russian tanks, while we were occupiers of ourselves. But in the same Poland or Czechoslovakia, the government persecuted dissidents and human rights activists, and the authorities did not have enough attention for artists; almost all of them had foreign passports and could travel to the West.

Cultural-political games at the foot of the great doctrine

Jean-Hubert Martin, a French art historian who headed the Pompidou Center in the late 1980s, wrote in his article on the systems of interpretation of Russian art in the West that the construction of Russian art is described from the position of the center, where meaning is produced and the paths of movement and direction of culture are drawn and where the concept of dominance of the primary impulse () prevails. The book "TOTART: Russian Roulette" contains an article by the English art critic Hilary Robinson (), which also touches on this topic. The other (that is, not Western) in such a construction is assigned only the role of a developer, but not a producer of meaning. The approaches here may be different: to read the text of the art of the 60s, a different language practice may be needed. And in order to create this practice, these languages ​​first had to be learned, which required the dialogic contact of many people. The Big Other came to Russia with an already established concept, which did not at all include the study of the meanings that arise within the Russian visible modernist text. One of the famous Western art critics during cultural events associated with the exhibition of Ucker in Moscow, urged us "not to extinguish the fire of Malevich". In many statements by leading Western art critics, the idea that only Suprematism and Constructivism are the same cultural code through which Russian art can be integrated into the global context. It can even be said in brackets that we were extremely unlucky in the 60s - we were never able to establish contact with deconstructivist critics, who in a sense were not only observers, but also a kind of co-authors of artists, which allowed them, together with by the author "go through all the texts" and end up "in right place". Descriptive art history, of course, existed, but it was not able to explore systemic relationships sociocultural phenomena and to find a proper place for the art of this period in the global process. Although we also had a formal school (which partly influenced the creation of the theories of H. Bloom, including "delay" and misreading), and in Tartu they didn’t fool around too much: in a word, there were opportunities, and structuralism even then spoke Russian language.

Russia, both then and in subsequent years, was perceived either as Raskolnikov's ax or as a light from the East. Any attempt to return the pragmatic romantics of the West to the sinful earth of reality met with distrust and hostility. Of course, there were reasons for this: in the Moscow artistic environment there were many ideologies then, often mutually exclusive, but coexisting peacefully on the broad platform of anti-Sovietism. There was a complete confusion in the minds, which did not allow to distinguish what was left and what was right (at least until very recently). Left intellectuals, mostly adherents of the Frankfurt School, sought to see in our reality something that could be opposed to the growing consumerist impulse of Western society. It seemed to them that in the art of Moscow painting school there are signs of a certain "spirituality", which we called "oven" among ourselves. The post-Malevich salon was considered the embodiment of this "spirituality", metaphysical painting. Rather one-sided information about the 20s, all the "holes" and "gaps" in this text brought to mind only one image of the disappeared letter - the Black Square, and this led to the emergence of obsessional practices related to this topic (recall letter E Steinberg to the late Kazimir Severinovich). The "spell" of the Black Square was not only a hidden protest against the code set by the West, but also a modernist desire to continue to serve art and fight for its continuation, and not destruction (the ideas of the constructivists about the fusion of art with life and its disappearance). However, it is worth noting that the (known to us) annual celebrations of Malevich's birthday were mainly attended by representatives of the emerging conceptual school (I remember such an evening in Kabakov's studio in the mid-1970s). At the same time, the painting and object TOTART exercises with the Black Square were read by the older generation artists almost as a mockery of common sense And cultural heritage. Intuitively, Russian artists felt the danger of being "exiled from within", they felt that they were becoming part of the text created by the Big Other, in which they went down the drain along with their values ​​(and later prices).

Derive gauche - shift to the left

The title of this section contains an allusion to Helen Bleskin's book "Derive gauche" (), which reflects the events, hopes and aspirations of the 1968 generation in a poetic form. to reveal the principles of an urban society, and, in particular, can denote the process of continuous production of this experiment. And in the context of Bloom's theory, he returns to the problem of a "strong viewer", when contact with a work is seen as a paradigm of its interpretation, "wrong reading" (art backwards), as an active form-creation on the part of this viewer, and the work itself as the consciousness of the viewer-interpreter. (We always read...as higher beings.)

Jindrich Chalupetsky was one of the first critics who, in a private letter to the author of these lines, wrote, in particular, that in Moscow Mikhail Roginsky was "the most modern artist." But it seems to me more important diary entry Mikhail Grobman (9), made in 1966: "We talked about modern painting and Moscow artists, Roginsky gives the impression of a very clever and likeable person. Among his works there are "total" stoves, "real" doors and "real" pieces of walls. "There are also several references to the early pop art works of Vladimir Yankilevsky. Among Moscow artists, Roginsky's works were not understood, since interest in the thing (and thus to the language paradigm in its structuralist and post-structuralist reading) had not yet emerged Roginsky's Big Thing was already from a different discourse.

Paradoxically, the artistic search for the beginning present century(in particular, "nonspectacular art") are more genetically related to these strange works in the Russian context. Translated through a conceptual project, this minimalist pop art is close to Italian "poor art" and largely corresponds to the idea of ​​"restriction, recognizing the language (of art) as the right to be limited, inferior, reflecting the insufficiency and inferiority of the restriction itself" (H. Blum).

Roginsky, according to him own words, "Payed attention to the simple, banal, everyday ... In addition, a simple object ... expressed reality more, and this was important to me." Roginsky wanted to write as (it seemed to him) they see " simple people". Isn't this the same shift of reality, thanks to which familiar things become visible, and the viewer has no choice but to "take an active research and critical position" (A. Fomenko) (

Moral freaks are photographed as a keepsake at the funeral of a genius, and they send me links to posts in the base same community, where my graphics dedicated to him in the late nineties are defiled in honor of the event with toilet-swearing verses right on top of the picture, I again recall the conversation between Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and Clara Zetkin. No, I was not present at her, you, the reader, probably too, and one can judge her only by Clara's notes made on German. The words of Vladimir Ilyich, spoken then, were subsequently widely disseminated. Somehow, I remember, I was holding in my hands one Belarusian book published somewhere in the mid-seventies, an album with photographs of products made by folk craftsmen from straw, such as birds, dolls, horses, etc. It began with this very quote:

"Art belongs to the people. Art must be It's clear people."
V. I. Lenin.

So, so that everyone knows: in the original, in German, recorded by Clara, this phrase sounds completely different. Lenin said:

Art must be understood people.

Understood and understandable - is there a difference? Damn owls, Once again perverted the founding father. Translators! It's no wonder that so many assholes have bred around!.. If you meet one of them with aplomb, you tell him so, repeat it well, three times, maybe more, as the LR user poper does, to fix:

Saturday, May 21, I was completely free, and at the invitation of Raisa Arefyeva I came to the Center contemporary art"MARS", which hosted the Russian Art Week.
I walked, as it seemed to me, alone through the halls, getting acquainted with the works contemporary artists. I immediately saw Raisa Arefieva, radiating a sunny smile - she joyfully looked from her self-portrait. I recognized several of her paintings from her handwriting.
It was a pleasant surprise for me to see the triptych "Lady in Red" by Stanislav Voronov on the second floor. Alan introduced me to Stanislav only on Sunday, during the closing of the exhibition, and on that day I was under the first vivid impression of his live works. One image - three different moods, different mental states, a rich palette of experiences, a surge of exciting emotions: delight from amazing the aroma of luxurious red roses, a slight dizziness from an exquisite drink in a thin glass and a feeling of tenderness of warm rain ...
Walking through the halls, I caught my feelings. Some paintings caught on to something alive, attracted, fascinated, caused the birth of associations and fantasies, but there were also such works that were completely incomprehensible. I thought: “How nice if there was an author nearby who would explain what he wanted to convey”
I once again returned to the first floor and suddenly heard an exclamation. She turned around and saw a middle-aged woman standing near the picture. She moved closer and then backed away, trying to examine the work in every detail. “Wow! Lover!?” She was surprised aloud, reading the inscription and involving me in the process of contemplating the picture. “Are you an artist?” I asked the woman. No, what are you, - she was embarrassed, - a pensioner "And she added, looking with admiration at the picture of a non-professional artist:" What a beauty! This is just a miracle!"
That's the power of art! I left the gallery with kind, bright feelings and the question: “Should art be understandable to people?”
WHAT DO YOU THINK?

"There lived an artist who had the gift of seeing and capturing beauty.

His ability to see Beauty - surprised people! The people who lived nearby looked at the same thing - and did not notice that it was wonderful! .. Until then, they did not notice this, until the artist turned what both he and they saw into a perfect picture!

The artist was a great Master of Beauty. He touched with the gaze of his soul what he saw - and depicted a wonderful moment of Eternal Being on his canvases. And then - a miracle happened: Beauty that was not noticeable before - became apparent to everyone who looked at the artist's picture!

Once he took up a portrait of a thin and inconspicuous girl, whom no one had previously considered beautiful. And she herself, too, was embarrassed by her subtlety and tenderness, her fragile body - and always lowered her eyes in embarrassment ...

“So ugly, thin ... - and you conceived to draw her! ..” - people said to the artist.

But the artist did not listen to those who said so - and painted. And the subtlety, and grace, and the gentle oval of the face, and the depth of the slightly embarrassed eyes - suddenly came to life on the canvas, creating a beautiful image.

And the girl looked, breathing a little: “It can’t be that it’s me ... Such a good picture! ..”

“I am only a mirror! - with a smile, the artist answered. - I just showed you the beauty of your soul!

Now - live, it is not hidden from the world!

You - like a soul - are like the beauty of the dawn! And with the tenderness of your love - you illuminate everything that you see!

And he saw an old woman - and he began to draw her portrait. And people wondered: what did he find in such an old woman?

And the artist - he wrote every wrinkle on her hands - like a chronicle. And there were in the annals of those words about a long and not easy life, about kindness and love, about children nourished by spiritual care, about grandchildren nourished by deep wisdom ... And the rays from the eyes shone - light streamed in them - to those people who are around now, and to those that are now far away ... Their light was like a river, which has its source in kindness of the heart.

And in that portrait - love, and wisdom, and peace - told people about a good life, about a big soul! And - in admiration - many people froze in front of that picture! And they saw the essence of life that was not lived in vain. And embraced their love of the beautiful soul - as tender evening dawn…

The artist displayed everything in such a way - that in reverence before old woman people bowed...

Then the artist painted the dancer. And in the moment that he portrayed, both the dance and the dancer merged. And the wave of the hand, and the music, and the look - now they sound on the canvas! And the one who looks can experience emotions doubly with his soul: like the one who contemplates the canvas, or like the one who - in the dance - sings the hymn of Love to God!

And the artist drew a drop of dew on a thin blade of grass.

Just ... a drop of water glistens in the sun. But this drop seems to say: “I am a drop in the immensity of Love! And the beauty of the sun was reflected - in me! And as if in a mirror of my love - now the peace and beauty of the Earth shine!

And with his brush, the artist captured one more moment in Eternal Being:
Over the sea - the sun threw up its rays! And - reflected in the clouds! .. And the birds fly - from afar to their native land! .. And the seashore with golden sand! .. Merged on the canvas - the creations of the Creator and man! Eternity has opened - in a single moment of Beauty! And the souls were illuminated by the sunrise - the Boundless Ocean of Light of God! And manifested in the greatness of this Beauty - the Creator of its Invisible Features!

That artist was endowed with a magical look: after all, he is able to see behind the Creation - the Creator of all Beauty!

And he can give people - the ability to see and love!

"For the strong, the weak is always to blame."
I.A. Krylov

The old Leninist slogan, which I put in the title of the article, again sounds relevant.

Russia is trying to build a system of capitalist financing of art, and as always hopelessly behind the global trends.

Why, more than a hundred years ago, Leo Tolstoy understood that his works should be free from any financial claims private property, and you, modern creators, do not understand this? You, who praise this thinker and bow your heads before him, call him your teacher, but as soon as it comes to your self-interest, it immediately turns out that you don’t understand a damn thing about his works.

Today, when created global network when so many personal computers have been produced (the architecture of which is precisely based on the free copying of information), all attempts to return society to the ridiculous taboos of capitalism and instill in the population the reflexes of dividing the “apple of discord” (when at the touch of a button this apple can be propagated in any quantity) - these attempts are simply absurd!

Instead of using the Internet for its intended purpose (as a universal piggy bank information resources with free access for anyone), you are trying to trade in information like tomatoes in the market.

Do you want to be cultural and educated - again become a luxury available to a few?

So it's not a problem. The problem is just something else. How to keep at least some remnants of civilization in the information noise! What's the point of protecting your copyrights? If your place is immediately taken by others who will give theirs for free. And people will understand that there is no difference, and it is often not in your favor. What then?

I would advise you to wake up, give yourself a good shake, sharpen your perception and finally understand that the civilizational crisis into which the capitalist world has entered is precisely based on an attempt to equate a virtual product with a material one. And all American external debt - these trillions of empty dollars - is nothing but a donut hole, when both the donut and the hole are sold at the same price.

It turned out that being cultured, educated is expensive for modern society. It has not yet raised the level of development of productive forces to achieve abundance in the material sphere. And it has already come to the inevitability of the socialization of information.

This distortion leads to the dystrophy of the law, when, with the help of absurd laws, the interests of the minority are tried to be imposed on the majority.

And there are only two ways: either to raise the level of development of material production (precisely due to the freedom of information dissemination), or to roll back (to fall into the wildness of the initial stage of development of capitalism, when society was divided into a small elite and the vast majority of poorly educated people).

But then do not be surprised that with the modern abundance of weapons and people, a whole cascade of revolutions awaits you along the way.

You obviously haven't read Alexander Lazarevich's book Nanotech Network. And if they read it, they didn’t understand a damn thing about it. This book is not about technology! And about the unpreparedness of the monkey herd with its pyramid of hierarchies and addiction to money to build new system public relations. Even if tomorrow you open new source energy that will allow you to build abundance, then you will hide it from everyone and begin to trade the profits received from it on the sly.

Have you watched a cartoon about a magic pot for a long time? A? Here you are - this is the same greedy merchant who wanted to sell porridge for the whole city alone and shouted: mine, I won’t give it! And your end will be just as inglorious.

It would seem that Channel One demonstrated to the whole world how people can voluntarily contribute their funds and save sick children. And no one complains that state functions from this are duplicated and discredited.

Why do you think that good director unable to raise money New film? However, you are right. Someone will succeed, but it will be few.

The trouble is that 5% of the population has an income of 90% of total income. And the movements of the soul common man turn out to be obviously unequal to one movement of a finger in the camp of the oligarchs.

That is why such actions are not able to replace state financing. And in order for this to be possible, the introduction of a progressive scale is necessary. income tax. For a simple percentage of deductions with such income inequality unequivocally kills any possibility of replacing the public distribution system on demand with a targeted one on behalf of the state.

Roughly speaking, as long as there is social inequality, the linear tax scale protects the interests of the wealthy minority, and any charity stumbles upon the monopoly position of the moneybags, concentrating the bulk of the income under their jurisdiction.

And all sorts of illusions about "every artist has a shirt from the world" will end in the first ten names.

And when selling art, it will inevitably turn into an instrument of oppression of the masses and brainwashing, and will guard the interests of capital. All these heaps of garbage in exhibition pavilions, pyramids of stools, golden rain on the heads of women - all this will not replace one Renaissance painting or one Chopin piano ballad. Doesn't this degradation surprise you?

You are still not telling the whole truth. Is not it? Why do you think that downloading gigabytes from the Internet is free? Since when? Each kilobyte is accounted for and paid for. Only this money went into another pocket. Why don't you look for them there? A?

The strong always blame the powerless.

0:00:29 05/31/2013 8A1173

Do you know what will happen?

The same as your stupid war with the casino.

People are encrypted. And they will send portions of megabytes through any channels available to them. And you will go crazy rather than eradicate the ability to freely copy information. Because it is the basis of all computer ideology. And your bitter lamentations are but the weeping of a bird-catcher near an empty cage.

I feel sorry for you, my little ones.

0:50:13 05/31/2013 C16A196

Reviews

And to any Russian-speaking performer of arts, I would answer this way:

Do you dream of capitalist excess income? - Go to America.

Only very quickly you will realize that no one needs you there. And without a Russian-speaking, native language environment, you are like a fish thrown ashore, and you will suffocate from this entrepreneurial freedom, wildly nostalgic for your soviet viewers, walk with dreary eyes, and, if you are very lucky, make your first million bucks, passing through hundreds of humiliations, spit on everything and say: “Damn it to hell! I want to go home, to Biryukovo…” And it is still unknown how we will receive you? Whether we will pay you to fulfill us; or you to us, so that we watch and listen to you!

For some reason you decided that you are special value? And the people who put you on the pedestals of the chosen one - is it dirt, which is a shaft? Oy! We are representatives of one single living organism with the name Russian great and mighty. And just as some below need spokesmen for their mysteries of the movements of the soul, so others at the top also need their spectators, listeners, readers - their people, who fed them, watered and nurtured them from childhood, and fell in love madly and unconditionally, and without whom they - nothing.

Vladimir Semyonovich Vysotsky felt this well:

«
There is no me - I left Russia, -
My girls are walking around in snot!
Now I'm sowing my seeds
On foreign Champs Elysees.

Someone yelped in a tram on Presnya:
“There is no him - he finally got tired!
So let your alien songs
He writes there about the Palace of Versailles.

I hear from behind - news exchange:
“Not that one! He left - ask! .. "
“Oh, not that one?!” - and push with elbows,
And sit on their knees in a taxi.

The one with whom he sat in Magadan,
My friend by civil war -
He says that I am writing to him: “Vanya!
It's boring, Vanya, - come on, brother, come to me!

I already asked back
He humbled himself, squirmed, begged ...
Nonsense! I probably won't be back...
Because I didn't leave!

Who believed - to that on a gift, -
So that happy end, like in the movies:
Take the Arc de Triomphe
Hit the Renault factories!

I'm laughing, I'm dying of laughter:
How did you believe this nonsense?!
Don't worry, I didn't leave
And do not hope - I will not leave!

In the original, you know who: "Art must be understood by the people ...." As you can see, the meaning is completely different. But the famous "Toilet" by Marcel became the source of the theory that art does not have to be understandable to the demos in the toilet, it must be understandable in a special "artistic space" that turns the toilet into a work of art. At the same time, the demos again means not you and me, but certain "elites", endowed with a special artistic taste that turns art into a social marker.
And here's an experiment:
One of the finest violinists of our time, Joshua Bell, played his Stradivari at the Washington Metro station, which was chosen for its excellent acoustics.
several works from unhackneyed classics, opening an unexpected impromptu, Bach's Chaconne from score No. 2 in D-minor - one of the most beautiful and difficult to perform works by Bach, which actually explains his unhackneyedness.

"...experiment in context, perception and priorities -- as well as an unblinking assessment of public taste: In a banal setting at an inconvenient time, would beauty transcend?"

Three minutes later, an old man was found, who turned his head and listened, after another half a minute, the woman, almost without stopping, threw a dollar, and only after 6 minutes someone stopped to listen. In total, Joshua Bell played for 45 minutes and during this time 1070 people passed him, 27 of them threw money at him, usually on the run, and only 7 people stopped to listen to him play.

The Washington Post developed a whole theory on this basis, and I will dwell on this theory, which explains not so much the Stradivarius subway game as the Washington Post, the loss of Hillary Clinton and the death of David Rockefeller, a little later. But in fact, it's all about the metro station.

A few days ago, in one of the jazz clubs, I told this story to a wonderful musician who, in a difficult moment of his life, played in the New York subway. It's all about the station, or rather the public:
The wealthy (bourgeois) audience that goes to concerts can perceive art only in a certain context, so it’s not worth playing at metro stations near Carnegie Hall - no one will listen, and they will drag you to the precinct. 42nd Street is the place with the most money, a place of dark wonders that I have written about many times. The largest crowd around will be on 34th Street and you can also find work there - a bar owner passing by will invite you to play in his bar in the evening. But LISTEN will only be on Broadway-Lafayette - where the fern usually blooms.