The result was a wonderful article in the Krasnodar newspaper 1 + 1.
“If you can’t draw, it still doesn’t talk about your genius.”
Salvador Dalli
Salvador Dalli
"Caution! Contemporary Art ”- it is a good idea to hang such a sign at museums and exhibitions. Most modern art has become an instrument of politics, it has become a business, but what's worse is no longer art. Gallery owners, for example, M. Gelman, often combine “artists” and political consultants (!). The works of such “masters” are propagandizing, provoking, annoying most of the society. A situation has arisen where the mediocrity, immorality, and often the brainlessness of the author can be successfully hidden in the word “modern”, by sticking “art” to it. And yet, what are the tasks of art? Why create great masterpieces and disgusting crafts?
In order to understand the problems of art, it is worth referring to the experience of the “golden age of Russian culture”. This century is rich in great artists, writers, musicians, but also rich in free-thinkers, revolutionaries and political circles. All this could not affect the art.
I propose to draw your attention first to the writers. So how exactly among the writers and philosophers were actively discussed the goals and objectives of art. As we know, in the middle of the XIX century, the Russian intelligentsia was practically split into two camps: Slavophiles and Westerners. It is worth noting a great similarity with these realities. After all, today the liberals are opposed by statesmen.
The cultural environment, especially the literati as its part, existed mainly in one of two currents, with a different view on the goals and objectives of art. It should be noted that some division was among the artists, however, due to its inherent features, it did not stand out so clearly.
The first trend was represented by the supporters of "pure art" A. Druzhinin, V. Botkin, A. Fet, A. Maikov, F. Tyutchev. The main postulate for them was the thesis “art for art's sake”.
The second trend was represented by supporters of “critical realism” (natural school) N. Chernyshevsky, N. Nekrasov, I. Turgenev, A. Herzen, V. Dahl. The main postulate of this trend was a critical attitude towards reality.
In both currents there were both Westerners and Slavophiles, for example, V. Botkin was a Westerner, and V. Dahl was a Slavophile. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that those who "professed" critical realism mainly consisted of Westerners, and representatives of pure art mainly consisted of Slavophiles. In addition, there were more bright representatives of Westernism than representatives of Slavophilism.
Now briefly about both currents.
Theory of Pure Art
The basis of this theory is the assertion about the independence of art from politics and social demands, about a certain self-determination of artistic creativity. That is, in fact, about "art for the sake of art." This theory affirms the self-sufficiency of artistic creativity, the independence of art from politics, ideology, and pressing social problems, proclaiming the creation of beauty as the highest goal of art, and not moral or social preaching.
What did his apologists understand by the purity of art?
Our contemporary, a well-known philologist and literary critic BF Egorov, wrote about A.V. Druzhinin in this way:
“The author (ie, Druzhinin is my edit) contrasts Pushkin as an ideally harmonious and“ bright ”writer to the Gogol school (the natural school is my edit) in literature, which supposedly accentuates only the dirty and dark sides of life. Druzhinin contrasts this school and related criticism, from Belinsky to Chernyshevsky, allegedly as a defender of “didactic” art to “free”, “artistic”, which rely not on the topic of the day, but on “eternal” values and goals ”.
Pure, according to Druzhinin, is, first of all, spiritually filled art, strong in the ways of self-expression. The position of supporters of "pure art" was not to separate art from life, but to protect its truly creative principles, poetic originality and the purity of its ideals.
That is, ultimately, we get:
1. Art as an end in itself
2. Refusal to preach
3. The object of attention - the eternal values (beauty, aesthetics, love, etc.)
Theory of critical realism
The most common features on the basis of which the writer was considered to belong to the Natural School (Gogol School) were the following: socially significant topics, a critical attitude to social reality, the realism of artistic expression.
V.Chernyshevsky and N.Nekrasov attributed themselves to the Westerners, critical of the autocracy and serfdom. In their literature grew those who later will fight for land for the peasants and for factories for the workers. With all the desire to contribute to the formation of Russian society, the Westerners looked at Russia through the eyes of "enlightened" Europe. It was a time bomb. From the outside, everything looked rather convincing and overwhelmingly accusatory.
Remember, Nekrasov wrote:
Go to the fire for the honor of the motherland,
For the conviction, for the love ...
Go and perish flawlessly.
You will not die for nothing: the case is solid,
When blood flows under him ...
Now we already know that half a century later "blood flowed" and died, admittedly, also flawlessly. But all this later, in 1917.
“There is no science for science, no art for art - everything exists for society, for the ennui of a person ...”, said Nekrasov.
At the same time, N. Chernyshevsky in his work “The Aesthetic Relationship of Art to Reality” singled out three tasks of art: reproduction, explanation, sentence. His critique was based on this. For example, he sharply condemned the plays of A.N. Ostrovsky, “Do not Sit in Your Sleigh” and “Poverty is not a vice” for the absence of an accusatory “sentence” of Russian life (Sovremennik, 1854, No. 5).
As a result, the representatives of this trend, we see:
1. Art as a means
2. Public sermon
3. The object of attention - the dark side (drunkenness, corruption, laziness, godlessness, etc.)
Chimera of modern liberal art
Interestingly, art as a means directed, in particular, against the elite of Russia in the 19th century, was used only by those who considered art to be critical of social reality, and representatives of the “pure art” movement, oddly enough, were engaged in creating masterpieces of Russian literature. .
“Critical attitude” to social reality, in spite of the entire genius of the authors, strongly hit the main pillars of Russian statehood. It is not surprising that the revolutionary democrat N. Chernyshevsky and the Russian diplomat F. Tyutchev were so different in their understanding of art.
But the most curious thing is how contemporary art has something in common with these trends. It may seem that today there is some critical realism, but this is not quite so.
At present, a liberal culture chimera, a pseudo art, is being created in a liberal environment. It absorbed all the dark sides of the two directions of the XIX century. Freedom and the slogan "art for art" is taken to justify unbridledness, the absence of any moral guidelines and the prohibition of censorship. This frank blasphemy is overwhelmed with radical critical realism, that is, by sucking out all the most vile manifestations of reality. In the end, the viewer appears such a Frankenstein, a symbiosis of licentiousness and dirt. There is no room for constructive criticism or manifestations of the beautiful. Modern pseudo art is on a different plane.
Remember the Soviet feature film fairy tale "The Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors"? There, the ugly seemed beautiful, and the beautiful ugly. Here and here. A pseudo-artist must create something truly disgusting and the worse the better. Such is the inverted principle.
Comparing modern pseudo art with the currents of the XIX century, it is worth noting the following differences:
1) Is all the same means. But when reproaches go in the direction of authors that they provoke, propagate (that is, use art as a means), then art immediately shrinks and becomes an end in itself. Nothing serious, they tell us, just the author's vision. They did not want to offend anyone. The authors are very flexible. Justified by either free art or criticism, as is more convenient.
2) Public preaching has become different. She turned over and became an anti-sermon, a tandem of propaganda and provocation. Low-lying phenomena at the level of instincts are promoted. Provocation does not offer anything, not even criticism. Here, the term "trolling" is more appropriate. There is no Nekrasov's "sanctification of man", but only a "sentence." Protecting propaganda, we are told about free "pure" art, defending provocations, we are told about criticism. Notice, by blaspheming, the authors suggest that we reflect on the place of the church in modern society and its problems, humiliating veterans, suggest reflecting on the cruelty and senselessness of war, etc. Will remove such an "artist" pants in the theater and offer to reflect on the freedom of the individual. Neither give nor take - performance!
3) The subject of attention is either the lowest sides of the society, or its spiritual space. If the lowest, such as LGBT, they are promoted, if spiritual space, then there is a provocation. These are dances on the ambo, and cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.
My firm conviction that for the most part “pure art” under conditions of wild capitalism and liberal values will certainly become a political technology and will serve politics and the capital behind it.
Under the pseudo-art in this article is understood a significant part of contemporary art, which is beyond the limits of aesthetics. Of course, there will always be a place for real creators, extolling those same eternal values, but this is more likely to be an exception.
About censorship as a countermeasure
Speaking about censorship, as a means of combating pseudo art, Tyutchev's opinion is interesting (article “On censorship in Russia”, November 1857 of the year):
“... as the mental activity becomes more free, and the literary movement develops, does not the necessity and usefulness of the higher leadership of printing become felt more day by day? One censorship, no matter how it operates, is far from satisfying the requirements of the current position of things. Censorship serves as a restriction, not a guide. And in our literature, as in everything else, we should be talking, rather, not about suppression, but about direction. A powerful, intelligent, self-confident direction is the screaming demand of the country and the slogan of our whole modern situation.
Often they complain about the spirit of rebelliousness and obstinacy that distinguishes the people of the new generation. There is a significant misunderstanding in such an accusation. It is quite obvious that in no other epoch so many energetic minds were left out of business, forced by inaction. But these same minds, among whom opponents of the Power are recruited, are very often disposed to ally with her as soon as she expresses a readiness to lead them and involve them in her active and determined activities. ”
Here Tyutchev touched two very important aspects at once. The first is that restriction measures alone are not enough, we need a direction, a powerful alternative. Secondly, the Russian authorities apparently lost the information struggle of the 19th century, lost control over the intelligentsia, failed to engage them in interaction.
What to do?
So said Chernyshevsky. We also ask ourselves this question. What should society do, and rather even the state in order to level this problem. And in my, purely subjective view, there should be several directions here:
At first, in such a crisis situation of political political rampant, a point restriction and close attention to the work of some of them is an inevitable necessity.
Secondlyso that our modern art does not immerse us in the seven circles of hell, but really makes us think, it is necessary to raise the level of culture and education. Remarkable ground for pseudo-art is the low intellectual level of individual members of the artistic community.
Thirdly, it is necessary to create an alternative trend in contemporary art that would oppose itself to the values of pseudo art. The basis of such a trend may lie: a dialectical union of the truth of "pure art" and the art of preaching traditional values. In essence, pure art can form a subcurrent, the core of an alternative course. There is no fundamental contradiction. Both trends can exist in the same school. It is important not to lose “energetic minds”, to find a common language and to set the vector of common work.
With all this, I would like to note that the power of capital in one way or another will have a serious impact on contemporary art. We all know very well how in the "enlightened world" for a lot of money works are sold. For example, at the auction of the Sotheby's auction house, the Walking Man sculpture by Alberto Giacometti went away for 65 million pounds. But, in the conditions of the market, we will have to accept this.