Sleeping girl on a blue. Katusha on a blanket Zinaida Serebryakova (1884-1967)

АААА! педофилия!!!

Арестовать!

Художницу — в Сибирь!
Картины — сжечь!
Музей — бульдозером сровнять!

Предлагаю эту картину увековечить на сторублевой купюре.

Срамота!

Мать – в тюрьму! Дочь – в детдом!

About Art, the Childrens Problem, Eroticism, and More

Passions for Lolita

In a recent interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda, Viktor Pelevin made a statement worthy of entering history: All the people of the sixties, like those from Gogols The Overcoat, came out of Nabokovs Lolita. Because no significant objections followed, we must conclude that a prominent representative of the genre, which could be called literary meditation, stated something long known: the touching story of a forty-year-old writer living with a twelve-year-old stepdaughter has long become a staple, or, as it is now commonly expressed, a cult (from the word cult) book for those representatives of the creative class who traditionally view creativity as one; if not the main; form of religious self-expression. Sacred love for music. One of its most prominent figures; by the way, a fairly well-known artist and teacher in Saratov, and the founder of a creative school, with whom we clashed in an argument about avant-garde art, specifically the work of Kazimir Malevich. When I asked him what kind of audience his paintings were intended for, besides a very narrow circle of like-minded people, he angrily retorted: Are they painted for the audience? A true artist paints for God...

Creativity as prayer? I find that understanding just as close. And could my interlocutor provide an example? No, not in painting, of course; here, I readily admit my ignorance, but in a more general area, say, even in literature? Lolita by Nabokov? I knew it. So, my vis-à-vis considers the touching description of incest as a model to be emulated? You should have seen the indignation in my interlocutors eyes! What a terrible insult to the highest feelings! What a magnificent creative outrage! What contempt he showed me, a mere mortal, who dared to judge things beyond my understanding! The maestro politely asked if I had read the book and, if so, whether I had finished it. I confess; with difficulty. Seven hundred pages about the psychological experiences of a pedophile are too much, even for a prepared reader. The indignation in my interlocutors eyes becomes boundless; he reminds me of a psychiatrist talking to an aggressive patient, who is angry at the whole world and, because of this, ready to accuse humanity of all mortal sins. Judging by his gaze, I should be horrified by my own mental state and go to heal my soul with something beautiful, kind, and eternal, drawn from that same Lolita. You must understand, this book is about love, says my interlocutor as gently and intimately as possible. But I remain just as adamant: does my interlocutor mean under the word love exclusively platonic feelings, or does he still remember that the main character of his favorite novel lives with his stepdaughter as a woman, which means he falls under the article of the criminal code for sexual relations with minors, adopted in almost all countries of the world? The maestro quickly loses interest in me, as someone completely incapable of having a conversation about lofty matters. We are obviously speaking different languages.

Vladimir Nabokovs son confessed in an interview with AIF that the writer wanted to burn the manuscript of Lolita. Not surprisingly. As a creative person, Vladimir Vladimirovich must have undoubtedly felt responsible for his actions. In the novel, thanks to the poeticization of passion, such depths of hell are revealed to the reader that even Nietzsche pales in comparison! And if Stavrogin in Dostoevskys Demons is petty, vile, and pathetic (and specifically in the traditional Russian understanding of this word; it is a pity for him: he, who seduced a girl who subsequently committed suicide, torments his conscience and tries to find, even if tragically unbearable and fatal, but in his opinion, a worthy way out of a moral impasse), then Humbert Humbert in the final part of the book, even after death, hopes for communication—there! —with his Lolita. Whose fate is more tragic? God have mercy; I definitely think that Stavrogin looks more human, because he feels something similar to remorse, and therefore can count on reciprocal compassion. The hero of Lolita, if he evokes sympathy at all, then only in our democratic intelligentsia, who has worked so hard to blur the lines between good and evil. In Kuprins story The Israelitish Woman, King Solomon, in order to expose a thief, comes up with a clever test: he tells a parable in which he asks to evaluate the moral actions of different people. The thief reveals himself by saying that the action of the robber seemed most moral to him: Only a thief justifies a thief. The psychological background of the story is more than convincing: a person is accustomed to justifying those like themselves, based on the desire of every person to always be right. Conscience is the voice of God, but in a sick person, even conscience is sick. And love. Therefore, when they say that Lolita is a book about love, then at best it is a delusion. Love cannot wish for another what it does not wish for itself. And possession without love, as said by Protopriest Alexander Shargunov in one of his articles, is lust.

By the way, have you noticed that despite the typical plot—the love of a forty-year-old Solomon for a thirteen-year-old Sulamif—the story does not cause psychological irritation, which became the reason for breaking spears in the discussion of Nabokovs work? Is it not because, despite the similarity of themes, Kuprins story lacks the passionate obsession that allowed even not so emotional Western audiences to characterize the film based on the book as a hymn to pedophilia, against which many Western womens organizations protested? Is Nabokov to blame for this? As one priest wittily noted, the novel was written with such sympathy for the main character that there is no doubt about the authors sympathies. I think it is not only this. For an objective assessment, it is necessary to trace the creative evolution of the writer Nabokov. Take a simple and touching story about love—Mashenka, which, by the way, was written in a simple, heartwarming language. As one of my acquaintances from the youth underground (a staunch fan of Lolita) said, its too simple. What can you do; virtue is always bland, while vice has a little spice to it, and thats why its interesting.

The writers later work, Camera Obscura, is not so simple. At its core is the story of passion: an elderly man becomes attached to a young harlot, leaves his beloved family for her, which leads him to complete failure—both in life and spiritually. The very fabric of the work is more tense, corresponding to the tragic intensity of the story.

Well, Lolita is the apotheosis of passion. To get closer to the object of his desire, the hero marries the mother of a twelve-year-old girl, drives her to death, and then slowly seduces the daughter (over several years), excruciatingly-pleasurably dragging out this story for hundreds of pages, threatening the object of his passion that if anyone finds out about their relationship, she will be sent to an orphanage for minor offenders, where it will not be easy for her with her data... And this book is about love? Forgive me, in my opinion, this is one of the most terrible books I have ever held in my hands; if it were not for research integrity, I would not have been able to read even ten pages, so painfully difficult it is to get through the thicket of authors thoughts. I have encountered a more depressing text only from Daniil Andreev or Madame Blavatsky. Was the same cunning spirit that dictated Lolita also the one that dictated Blavatskys letters to the mahatmas?

Another critic from the democratic intelligentsia would probably be indignant: well, here you go, we were forced to accept Michurin biology, and now they demand adherence to Orthodox canons in art... God forbid! Although an artist should think about the moral responsibility for his works, I dont think it is necessary to encroach on the precious freedom of creativity. But we should think about the Orthodox assessment not only of art, but, as Seraphim Rose taught, of all surrounding reality. One can engage in any activity while remaining a Christian, but only for the benefit of the soul of ones neighbor. That is, most often do the same thing, but with love. If you say that Black Square by Malevich was created for the sake of love, would that be true? Read what the classic of avant-garde said about his creative creed. I think that neither a Muslim nor a God-fearing Christian would have rejoiced to learn that their brother worshiped Salman Rushdies Satanic Verses. A believer should read literature with other titles. So, can it be said that Lolita is a book about love? Only if one means by love something other than what the Gospels teach. That is where we must begin. With fundamental concepts. What do we mean by a particular word. Sometimes, in order to decide, it is necessary to draw a line.

Igor Khramov Teselkin

https://www.proza.ru/2015/12/08/691
http://www.stihi.ru/2016/05/30/3070

Commentary by Pavel Kazakov Pedophilic Countries. For example, on the American continent, in the USA, the minimum marriage age varies by state. For men, it is 14-18 years old, and for women – 13-17 years old; in Canada (the province of Quebec), the minimum marriage age for girls is 12-16 years, and for young men – 14-16; in Argentina, Colombia and Peru, the minimum age for marriage for men is 16 years, and for women – 14; in Venezuela, Paraguay, Chile and Ecuador, the minimum age for marriage for men is 14 years, and for women – 12.
http://amina-bar.livejournal.com/82161.html

Response to comments about the marriage age. Do you remember how the story of Romeo and Juliet ended? They both died and took... oh, I dont even remember—how many people with them into the grave...? Could their marriage have been happy in real life? That question seems rhetorical to me...

Педофилия – это видеть в подобных картинах что-то развратное. Почему, если перед вами обнаженная девочка, то вы кричите, что это пошлость? Здесь изображен счастливый и спокойный ребёнок и в нём не может быть ничего прошлого! Лечитесь, если видете в подобных картинах разврат

ну это самое невинное изображение. Другие портреты нагой 9-летней дочери у Серебряковой кажутся слишком "чувственными" для малолетки. Она слишком красива для своих лет и в этом
вся беда. Видно сама Серебрякова торопилась представить
публике её красоту.