Was the process?

Two encouraging events occurred at once: in Moscow, the artist German Vinogradov was justified in the process of Yuri Luzhkov, and artist Artem Loskutov was released from the guards (however, he still has a court). Does the authorities refuse to persecute contemporary art? Commented by Yuri Samodurov, Dmitry Vrubel, Marat Gelman, Elena Haydiz.

Yuri Samodurov , former director of the museum and public center Andrei Sakharov:

As for Artem Loskutov, it is great that he was released. A pre -trial detention center is not a pioneer camp or even an army. The feeling that they can do anything with you is a huge tension. I am very glad that he is now at home, and I hope that public support will help to achieve his excuse. It is good that at the same time in different cities, actions spontaneously took place in his support.

As for the results of the court in the lawsuit of Luzhkov against the newspaper Kommersant and Herman Vinogradov, when I spoke with Herman, I did not hear the words "justified" - only "I was not dried, they did not appoint a fine." But this is good. I know him for a long time, I know that this person will never intentionally do anything. As they said on the Radio "Freedom", suing Vinogradov is like going to court for a brownie. Here is Yuri Luzhkov - the mayor of Moscow, and German Vinogradov is a house of Moscow.

Should these two episodes consider a positive shift in a general sad situation? Of course not. This is no trend. As for our business (Mr. Samodurov and art critic Andrei Erofeev is judged by the organization of the exhibition “Forbidden Art-2006.”-Ed.), For the correct understanding of his public, it is important that it is commented on by people who are versed in art, so that they convey to people that the “Forbidden Art” exhibition is devoted to significant issues of censorship and self-censorship. This exhibition did not concern the problems of religion and the church - it was about something else.

The leaders of artistic institutions are inclined to prohibit the screening of works in which religious symbols are not used to express faith in God, but to demonstrate the artist’s attitude to any problems that interests him - culture, ideology, etc. But contemporary art is so arranged that it plays with the current symbols, creates its images on the basis of existing cultural accents - whether they are religious, state, any. And they have the right to this, just as the leaders of museums and galleries have the right to refuse artists to demonstrate their work, if they consider those inappropriate in their institution.

But if this is not necessary anywhere, it is not appropriate anywhere, and not because the leaders of the museums decided so, but because they are afraid of hunters for "non -Orthodox heads", this is a completely different situation. This is an attempt to monopolize the right to ideology, disguised as a diverse for offended feelings of believers. But people feel that it is important for the artist. When the investigator accuses me and Andrei Erofeev of inciting religious razor, he ignores the essence of the exhibition that we announced openly. The exhibition is an event of culture, and discussing it only from a legal point of view is wrong. The organizers had certain professional goals: to raise the issue of censorship, to show the bold works of artists.

It's all not that scary. But this distorts the artist’s attitude to society, narrows his freedom, violates the activities of galleries and museums, and makes him be afraid. And fear is a destructive thing. Especially for the artist.

Dmitry Vrubel , artist:

Sitting now in Berlin, I understand one thing: in Russia, the attitude of society towards modern art is sharply negative. And if, under the Soviet regime, I was sure that this is all the machinations of the damned Bolsheviks, now I see: well, bananas are not growing at the Co Bureau Pole. And making people love us is either very expensive or pointless. Active performances against contemporary art are only part of the general situation. Dissiders do not stand up for us because they love contemporary art, but because they are human rights activists. And so the bulk of human rights activists does not like what we do, they do not like it.

It is impossible to arrest people not for criminal offenses, but for beliefs. I am against the persecution of Erofeev and Loskutov, I was against this absurdity with Vinogradov, and we were made claims in Perm from the GosnarkoKontrol. This is all complete idiocy, but at the same time I repeat: the tendency of dislike for modern art in Russia is strengthened from year to year. However, is it so sad? After all, if bananas are growing poorly in the north, then in Africa they grow perfectly. And if this art is not welcomed with us, then in Berlin it is the basis of the image - the city positions itself as the cultural capital of Europe not through banks and industry, but through contemporary art. For this, artists are invited from all over the world, who create all the conditions and so on - live, create, only do not break the law. And we have it like that.

Marat Helman , Galerist:

We always want to see in good some trends, and in bad chance - I want to hope. As for the anagram (Yuri Luzhkov - the oarz. - Ed.) German Vinogradov, in my opinion, a brilliant anagram, this is the first court to lose. This is cool - it means that common sense defeated the chirrel of the official. The situation with Loskutov is more serious, but it is obvious that he does not pose any threat to society, great that he is at home.

As for the trend, I think public pressure worked. It has recently been working on separate episodes, oddly enough. In the time of Yeltsin, it also worked, but in a special way: Yeltsin read newspapers. You could pay for the article, make it monitoring it, and your opinion would reach the president. There was even such a term: Sil. If the media is the media, then the SIL is the means of informing the first person. Now blogs have actively influenced the situation. We all hope, but the main thing is that there are no disappointments.

Elena Haydiz , artist, member of the exhibition "Forbidden Art-2006":

I am very glad that Artem Loskutov was released that Vinogradov was justified. But I think this is an accident. In fact, Samodurov and Erofeev, alas, this luck will not affect. By the way the People’s Cathedral and nationalists intensified, it is difficult to say that everything will be fine in court. There are 143 witnesses, they will all give their absurd testimony.

With Loskutov, I think, the role was played by popular indignation, protests that took place not only in Novosibirsk, but also in Moscow, in Nizhny Novgorod, Murmansk, it was great. The authorities of Novosibirsk impressed that the case caused such an all -Russian resonance. And we have a different story. They, infinitions of a criminal case against the organizers of the exhibition "Forbidden Art", are prepared very seriously. What are all these false stories like the one that someone’s wife allegedly died after watching the exhibition. This is serious, they have already played, in my opinion, they want to achieve a result.