Marat Gelman. Violators?

Violators?
Marat Gelman

Publication date: February 16, 2004

In a strange way, the conflict around the exhibition “ Beware of Religion! ” not only continues, but absorbs all other subjects of our artistic reality. The artistic community is scared because it is dealing with the court, the prosecutor’s office, and not with some not very smart, and therefore easy to beat Zurab Tsereteli, who is enough to be ridiculed. We are talking about applying the Criminal Code to the exhibition, and punitive measures to its organizers. There are two main arguments. The first is that it is not the organizers of the exhibition, but the rioters who should be in prison, because they are vandals who destroyed works of art at the exhibition. The second argument is human rights. Every person has the right to express his thoughts about religion, including atheistic and critical of religion.

I hope there is no need to explain that in this dispute between the prosecutor's office and the artistic community, I am on the side of the artistic community. But it seems to me that she made a grave mistake. She herself chose the prosecutor's office as her interlocutor, refusing dialogue with the Orthodox community. It is clear that from the point of view of an Orthodox deeply religious person who does not question either the Christian canons or the Russian Orthodox Church, these guys who carried out the pogrom are not vandals, but well done. And the right of every person to have his own, different from others, thoughts about the Lord is not obvious to them. At the same time, if the artistic community had chosen them, and not the prosecutor’s office, for discussion, perhaps there would not have been a trial.

Let's start with something simple - with the "pogromists". Did they break the law? Probably yes, I’m not very well versed in the laws. Do I leave the right to anyone to break the law in defense of their own beliefs? Yes. Brener painted a green dollar sign on Malevich's "Red Square" and served time for it. The artistic community does not refuse to understand him just because he violated the Criminal Code. Did Osmolovsky not disturb public order in his early performances? Violated. Did they take him to the police station? They took it away. But it’s unlikely that anyone will blame him for this. Therefore, I propose those Orthodox Christians who organized the pogrom, and those who sympathize with them, and such - alas! - a lot, consider them not vandals, but the opposite party, - and appeal not to the court, but to them. Of course, a certain imbalance in this dispute is introduced by the fact that the intelligence services seem to be on their side, but the dialogue must begin despite this. Moreover, the court dug up unknown art critics with academic degrees from some depths unknown to us, and we can discuss not only the exhibition, not only the act of young adherents of the Russian Orthodox Church, but also a masterpiece called “Expert Conclusion in Criminal Case #4616.”

The conflict between art and the church has a long history. The artist has always - and not just the modern avant-garde artist - tried to violate the canons, tried to find his own vision of the figure of Christ. The very concept of “spirituality” for the artist and for the church has exactly the opposite meaning. For the church this is a canon, a sacred text; for an artist it is a search for something new, unconventional, personal. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, in the end, all these disputes were resolved by history in favor of art. The priests who lived during the time of Michelangelo forced the maestro to cover the nudity of the figures on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. However, later, with the consent of the church, the records were washed away. The Church realized that preserving the original plan of the great maestro was more important than maintaining “decency.” Edouard Manet's painting "Olympia" caused a stormy protest from the religious community, and only the precautions of the administration of the Paris Salon did not lead to its being torn apart. Today "Olympia" is a recognized masterpiece of the entire world culture. The founder of the movement also experienced attacks from Christian bigots in his time." Art Brut "("Rough Art") Jean Dubuffet , whose centenary in 2001 was celebrated with exhibitions in major museums in Paris, Berlin, Rotterdam, New York. Many works of art in which Christ, Mary, and other religious characters were present were At first they were anathematized, and then accepted by the church. What happened? According to my version, the problem is that sacred objects of worship for a believer, namely, icons, are formally similar to works of art. And therefore the first reaction of the church is to treat a work of art as transformation of an object of worship. But an icon and a work of art - although both can be done in oil, have the form of a painting, placed in a frame or setting - are different things. But, apparently, in order for the painting to prove its right to the church not to be an icon, time must pass.For those who today repeat the mistakes of their predecessors, I remind you that history has given this phenomenon a term - obscurantism.

This is about work. As for their authors - “people who dared...” - the following is the text of any of the angry statements addressed to contemporary artists. At one time, Leo Tolstoy dared to have his own opinion about Christ, about religion, about the church, which does not prevent him from being and remaining a pillar of world culture. The great film directors Pier Paolo Pasolini (“The Gospel of Matthew”) and Jean-Luc Godard (“I Want to Salute Mary”) dared to film their versions of the Gospel stories - their experience was continued by the films of Scorsese (“The Last Temptation of Christ”) and Kevin Smith (“Dogma”) "). None of these works, ostracized not only by the Catholic Church, but also by the rallying crowds of “offended believers,” have been forgotten by contemporaries - on the contrary, despite the ban on wide display, for example, in Italy, they are widely distributed on cassettes and disks. The famous singer Sinead O'Connor tore up a photograph of Pope John Paul II during an appearance on MTV with the words: "Fight the real enemy." Because of this, she had a lot of trouble from not only the church, but also from the religious fanatics of her native Ireland, suffered a nervous breakdown, but continues to perform to this day. Finally, Madonna herself was anathema, having performed “Like a Prior” with an episode of the statue of Christ coming to life and at the same time losing a million-dollar contract from Pepsi-Cola. It seems that she is not the last in this series. Thus, the right of a person to have his own opinion has been approved by history, and even the right to blasphemy. After all, it was Pushkin who owned the blasphemous “Gavriliad”. What is criminal for a monk may turn out to be the highest achievement for a poet, musician, or artist.

The next thesis concerns more the modern situation and appeals not to historical truth, but to our understanding of the difference between a person’s personality and the role taken on by the artist. If an artist plays a bandit, a murderer, no one would think of trying to imprison him for murder. We understand the difference between a person and his actions in real life - and an actor, what he does while playing a role. A work of art whose main character is a villain can bring goodness and morality. We have learned to, as it were, recreate this invisible wall between life and art and understand that what is permissible to invent and implement there, behind glass, in the sphere of art, is not permissible here, in life. Why, having learned to see this wall in a theater, in a cinema hall, do we not see it in an exhibition hall? Why do we identify the artist’s personality with what he depicted? In my opinion, again, everything happens because of the formal coincidence of the painting and the icon. But in exactly the same way - formally - the account book and the manuscript of the novel coincide: thick, many sheets of paper, bound, but completely different in content and, most importantly, carrying different functions of the book.

And finally, the last argument for current and future pogromists. The exhibition hall is not at all necessary for deeply religious people to visit. The world today is structured in such a way that different people, with different beliefs, with different traditions can live within the same country and not intersect. After all, we have learned to live together with people of different faiths. For some, animal sacrifice is a natural religious ritual, for others it is sacrilege. One faith prohibits the image of a person, in another, on the contrary, the image is worshiped. We must learn to coexist not only with people of other faiths, but also with atheists, especially since, unlike Soviet times, they have no power today. Do not go to other people's "sanctuaries". In the temple, art can really offend your religious feelings, you shouldn’t go there. After all, even Perov’s textbook “Easter Procession” can offend someone’s religious feelings. Think for yourself: a priest’s vestments covered in vomit, an icon turned upside down in the hands of a drunken woman—isn’t this a reason not to go not only to the Gelman Gallery, but also to the Tretyakov Gallery?

Moreover, the art criticism given in criminal case #4616 allows any work to be considered blasphemy. I cannot deny myself the pleasure of quoting from this examination:

"...At first glance, the exhibit appears to be a conventionally modeled “object of worship” or “altar”, organized with the help of gray drapery, partly lying on the ground, and partly rising vertically upward. On the part of the canvas lying on the floor, they were flat round ceramic (clay) cakes (plaques) were laid out in rows, and the vertical part framed a video recorder, on the screen of which, in a constantly scrolling video recording, these clay circles, through animation, came to life and began to grow, through a circular growth along the upper edge. Their growth is accompanied by an inarticulate hum human voices, expressing, as it were, the activity of the efforts of some invisible builders. Every 10-15 seconds, the space of the frame was crossed by the blade of a knife, cutting off those parts of the turrets that rose in their height above the level of sliding of the blade. The construction and the voices accompanying it freeze for a second, but then quickly everything begins again, with perhaps more enthusiasm, with the parts that fell to the ground becoming springboards for new construction, new growth. As a result, after each passage of the “sword” frame, the number of turrets doubles. Finally, there is a whole “crowd” of them, they quickly grow together to the cheerful roar of voices. The sword no longer appears, and in a matter of seconds the turrets complete themselves. However, the sudden cessation of “repression” seems to put them on guard. With an anxious sigh, they simultaneously lean first to one side, then to the other, and freeze, as if listening in anxious anticipation. Suddenly the sound of a bell is heard, and the turrets - either from horror, or from some mystical reason - not only collapse, but instantly disintegrate into dust so that after them there are no more fragments left from which new construction could begin, a new height.

Question 1. Probably, if this exhibit had been at another exhibition, its interpretation could have been different, corresponding to a different context. But in this case... its concept is revealed in this context as follows.

The turrets under construction symbolize church construction (spiritual or material - probably both), and the flickering knife, cutting off their tops every now and then, symbolizes the various persecutions to which the Christian Church was subjected. The entire history of Christianity, starting from the first centuries of its existence, fits this scheme, but its last period is especially significant for us - the persecutions of the twentieth century in Russia, which gave rise to an unprecedented number of new martyrs. The author of the exhibit apparently knows some of the fundamental ideas of Christian church preaching, which is essentially the same, from the New Testament to the present day. Both the Gospel, the ancient Fathers of the Church, and modern preachers affirm that persecution not only does not diminish, but colossally increases the strength of the Church: the Church has always grown on the blood of its martyrs. This patristic teaching is especially relevant for the situation in modern Russia: the Russian Orthodox Church believes that the huge number of new martyrs and confessors for Christ, which the twentieth century produced in Russia, is the basis for a new flourishing of both the Russian Church and Russian statehood. This, in particular, was directly prophesied by St. before the revolution. right John of Kronstadt, saying that “on the blood of such martyrs, I foresee the uprising of a new Russia, even more powerful and glorious, strong in its faith in God.” Apparently, knowing this general positive mood of believing Orthodox Christians in modern Russia, the author of this exhibit makes in his work a gloomy counter-prophecy about the final death of all Christian aspirations and, apparently, Christianity itself.

Moreover, oddly enough, for Orthodox people this transparent hint made by the author of the exhibit is not a simple expression of bad wishes (bad desire), an unkind attitude towards Christians, but receives some confirmation in the Holy Scriptures, in the book of the Apocalypse, where it is said that after general Christian preaching throughout the world, accompanied by a relative calm from troubles, there will be a final exterminating persecution of Christians under the Antichrist, much more terrible than all the previous ones. It is not clear whether the author of the exhibit had in mind the prophecies of the Revelation of John, but, most likely, he nevertheless expressed his personal wish for the end of Christianity, simply in tune with some apocalyptic chapters. If he really knew the content of the Apocalypse and wanted to illustrate it, then he would have to somehow reflect the fact that according to this prophecy the Church will stand, despite any persecution, “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” and “those who have endured will be saved to the end." Regarding Russia, from the Orthodox tradition left by those saints who accurately predicted the revolution and persecution, it is known that in it the Antichrist will never have complete power, and “will not cross the Diveyevo ditch.”

So, read in the context of this exhibition, the content of this exhibit is an expression of the wish for the death of the Christian Church.

Question 2. Psychologically the work is very aggressive. Galstyan's work looks like a threat to the Christian Church, like a kind of "threatening fist", and undoubtedly has the goal of psychological intimidation of Christian believers.

Question 3. A means of directly and purposefully conveying negative and even threatening content to the Christian Church is a cartoon image of creation ending in complete and irrevocable destruction.

Question 4. This exhibit does not directly contain objects of worship or religious texts. However, the composition of the work as a whole, as mentioned above, resembles an abstractly depicted altar or altar. It should also be borne in mind that this work was presented by the author for an exhibition dedicated to religion, and was surrounded by the appropriate context.

Question 5. The general concept of the work, if we read it correctly, covers a huge historical layer - the entire history of Christianity. But, of course, most of all, this exhibit refers to the current situation in Russia, when before our eyes, after a period of terrible repressions, one after another, not only old churches are being revived, but also many new ones are being built, which, apparently, causes an extremely negative attitude the author of the installation."

This text struck me not with stupidity or voluntarism, but with the fact that it is like a twin to the art criticism texts that were made on instructions from the KGB. And this is rather a friendly warning to the Orthodox. If I were you, I would be afraid of such stylistic similarity. The search for “hidden meaning” with the help of art historians specially trained for this was one of the main tools of the organs. I am sure that with the help of the same, and perhaps the same art critics, works with a burning candle were not allowed into exhibitions; they looked for hidden letters X and C in abstract works.

And finally, the last argument. Who and how are you fighting? Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, the main, practically state power, religion, the adherence to which is demonstrated by the majority of politicians and the elite, with the help of the court are trying to fight a small group of enthusiasts interested in contemporary art. Yes, I agree that we are your ideological enemies, as I already said, not for the first century. But let's fight with the help of ideological weapons: argue, publish articles, meet in university classrooms, on other neutral platforms, and not in the courtroom. I propose to the Union of Orthodox Citizens to withdraw their lawsuit against the organizers of the exhibition “Beware of Religion!” and move on to public discussions.