While the Russian people will only think about money, there will be no art

Are modern cultural processes in Russia capable of producing patterns that could become world heritage, as they were in the past? Should Russian culture follow global trends, or do you need to look for your own? These questions became the subject of an interesting discussion that took place last Thursday, January 23, 2014 as part of the Platform project at the Winery, in the studio of Mikhail Korolyov.

The Platform project was created as a platform for discussing various communication practices, talking about how public consciousness and “mass instincts” are formed. Initially, the initiator and organizer of the meetings was the Volga investment group, which manages the assets of the famous entrepreneur Gennady Timchenko. Now the project is also supported by the publishing house “Arguments and Facts” and the publishing and consulting group “Praxis”, the Internet gallery of painting “Galleriks”. The poet Andrei Dementiev, who, however, refrained from speaking, was present at the meeting as an honored guest.

The representative of Praxis Vitaly Sednev asked the impulse of the discussion, asking the following question: “Russian literature is dying away and books are no longer needed or is a new take-off already ripening somewhere?” Writer Taras Rakin shared his thoughts: “To understand whether it is worth waiting for something from Russian art, you need to understand what an artist can do. ” Rakin proposed a seemingly banal dilemma: “Will artists fantasize or sleep?” However, in the interpretation of the writer of fantasy as something invented by man, the wrong way to masterpieces is not. “The artist takes into account the effect of signs, which creates and, in fact, is engaged in calculating these signs and effect. But in this way something banal and not interesting is created, besides it is surrounded by the necessary infrastructure in the form of criticism and media. An artist who deals with calculi, which is actually hard labor, is forced to reduce them to the extent that gives a commercial effect. ”

A more likely way to a real work of art, according to Taras Rakin, is spotted creativity, an analogue of dreams. The writer also proposed such a characteristic of the cultural process as "insomnia." Perhaps this definition of the writer corresponds to the current state of Russian culture.

Notes of optimism were made by artist and artist Andrei Shevchenko: “Everything we do is wonderful. You need to continue to do this. We do not have a crisis of art, but a crisis of assessments. We must not slow down and be positive. ”

Researcher of domestic cultural policy Nikolai Makharadze drew the attention of the audience to the fact that contemporary art is impossible without an open society. “Contemporary art is interested in its language, its capabilities. Formerly, art was a joy of recognition for a person - “it seems like you want to touch it”. But the process has gone far ahead. Contemporary art is a luxury; free people who are interested in the reaction of other people and their language can afford it. We have little interest in other people’s freedom and dialogue. ”

Among contemporary Russian artists, there are no world-famous stars, since PR mechanisms for creating such stars do not work for us, there is no competitive environment and developed gallery business, Nikolai Makharadze believes. “There are not enough managers,” summed up the meeting host, managing director of the Volga group Alexey Firsov.

Journalist Dmitry Lisitsin believes that it is appropriate to evaluate the Russian cultural process in the context of curtailing the European project, which lasted more than two millennia and was built around a certain single center (the idea of Rome), a certain value system. This system could have its own periphery, but now the hierarchy is destroyed. So, it’s impossible to reproach Russian art for provincialism, any culture is now regional, but completely accessible through Internet communications.

Dmitry Lisitsin proposed to search for elements of art not only in traditional forms, but also through other communication tools. For example, according to the degree of thoughtfulness and sophistication of form, some computer games can be equated with art.

Film producer Julia Mishkenene drew attention to the fact that today there are two layers in domestic cinema that practically do not intersect with each other. The first is “state cinema”, supported by the Ministry of Culture and the second is “on the outskirts”, without state support, with people who have recently come to the cinema. “In the cinema there is the possibility of sprouts that sprout through the concrete wall,” said Julia Mishkenene, noting that Russian cinema is still not easy to get the attention of a Western audience, who find it difficult to understand the motivation of our heroes.

The artist Andrei Kulagin suggested the following idea: all the masterpieces of Soviet cinema were examples of auteur cinema, “when there is a great director and a great work”. But basically, Soviet cinema was a "tracing" of Hollywood, but with a different ideological content, of course.

Andrei Kulagin summed up the meeting with a bright and rather indisputable thought. “Recently, everything has been done for the sake of money. But the artist should not work for money, he should make pictures, because he cannot help but make them. As long as the Russian people think only of money, there will be no art. ”

Alexey Lyalin