Recently Nikita Mikhalkov in the framework of the XV International theatre forum “Golden knight” gave large weekly detailed interview. It Director and teacher, directly and indirectly, (a beautiful allegory) expressed their understanding of the state policy in the field of art and culture. And not only his: a dies painfully recognizable. For example, the famous “he who pays the Piper”.
photo: Alex geldings
In all that concerns politics and morality, colorful, figurative speech is as winning as it is dangerous. In careless metaphors often blurt out things that were better kept to yourself. The Maxim “he who pays…” has a very specific meaning and is used in very clear contexts. At best, it’s about the ordering of the music in a tavern, in the worst — “the girls who are having dinner…”. As applied to the arts this wisdom automatically puts the artist in a very precarious position. Range from kept woman to prostitute. The position is popular, but not for all.
About Kirill Serebrennikov said literally the following: public money can only do something that is close to the masses; if you at the expense of the budget deal of aesthetic delights, be prepared to “get in the face”. Another problem with the metaphor. Since pieces of silver was not “in the face” and investigation for financial irregularities; it turns out that incriminate him, in fact, not theft, and unauthorized elitism. But the logic is always symmetric: if the money in the budget to do something close to the people, from the financial and the investigating authorities you “in the face” get. In other words, artists, loved ones people, you can steal.
This financial and ethical primitivism raises a number of questions. Where is the line between popularity and elitism that defines who financial pranks are allowed and who is not? Who and how this border defines where this is fixed? This is important for those who are constantly under threat and for those who get “in the face” does not threaten under any circumstances. Everyone understands that for the same reason you can attract almost anyone.
Because financial supervision in aesthetics understood not all signals must come from the management culture. Then, in accordance with any administrative regulations of this interagency cooperation is carried out and where the documentary leaves its traces? The Director has made clear, where “drop”, but would be better if he didn’t do it because it is so well known.
Not very clear method of determining the true “measure of the nation” of specific works and art actions. The idea of sending performances Serebrennikov “mining town” fresh and interesting, especially the prospect of a full house. Unlike official-Patriotic paper, produced at public expense with wild losses.
Finally, the principle: “But can’t art exist complete if it addressed only a very small number of people”. Poor cinema in its highest achievements, a terrible century, a mess in my head!
In the same interview expressed concern alive the prospect of the denigration of the image of the Soviet Union. In this regard it would be appropriate to investigate what “private” and “sponsorship” money was made during the Soviet era all aesthetically protruding art of the highest class, still obscure, not only collective and proletarian, and aristocratic to the masses. Where all of this was in a country where the whole culture of nothing but the state budget did not exist and could not be? And as in Russia in times of famine in folk remedies could be the great Russian avant-garde, too, is still not understood by anyone except holders auctions, art dealers, art historians, art dealers, major collectors and producers of the show on the openings and closings of the Olympic games and Championships? It is necessary to understand that the elite culture is the only thing we have now produced for export, not including hydrocarbons, metals, flax and hemp. And sell to a real forest, the living forest, not the Siberian Barber salon with their ideology.
Educational fuse — a separate issue. Mother taught the future Director that children need to be educated, “while they lie across the bed”. Here also problems with the meanings of the tropes and ambiguity aristocratic-aristocratic gentility. Actually this proverb, and it sounds like this: smack it while lying across the bench and along lie — it’s too late. Although, to be honest, the replacement of benches on the bed and “smack” to “educate” fact in that world picture does not change. And the object of the whipping-the education here is not a private baby, and the country and all the same people, without a master and without unreasonable ass nedoocenennyj.
Genuine, sincere statism requires you to listen to the opinions of fellow parent, especially the state of persons of category A. the President of Russia not so long ago, they also cited the opinion of his mother, who taught him the human relation even to the captured enemy, and he did it in connection with the performance of the boy from Urengoy. The position of the state expressed by the press Secretary of Russian President Peskov, who called the events surrounding this incident “this harassment”. And here the Russian besogon with a passion is included in the hysteria around this story. “But someone wrote to him! Someone implemented these ideas in his head!”. In fact, who introduces ideas and writes the words for our political leadership?
The title of the interview: “I do Not like provocation!”. It argues that “in the Yeltsin center seriously trying to justify the Vlasov movement”. In the Yeltsin center of Vlasov word. Adult across the bench is not allowed.