Glafira Kefirova. Let him stop!

Let him stop!
Glafira Kefirova

Date of publication: September 28, 2000

Artist Oleg Mavromati again took up self-crucifixion . This time in the Gelman Gallery. The action was called "Man X".

He held a previous rally in April near the Cathedral of Christ the Savior , after which a criminal case arose under the article of inciting racial, religious and national hatred. He was aroused by the parishioners of the Church of St. Nicholas, offended by the action of Mavromati, who had an inscription on his back that he was not the son of God. Perhaps this is precisely what looked like sacrilege, because all of us, even the most inveterate, whether we want or not, are children of God, as Scripture states . Although sometimes we are also credited with another maternal relationship.

As for the action itself - nailing the artist's palms and feet to the cross - I don't know what incites discord in it. Everyone who sees the nailed Mavromati feels unbearably sorry for him. Because the sight of other people's suffering evokes in every normal person only one desire - to immediately stop this torment.

It’s good to talk about Mavromati’s action without seeing it. And having seen it, it is no longer possible to reason. I saw her. I'm telling you.

"What brings you here?" - a fashionable young lady I knew asked in surprise when she saw me at Gelman’s .

“Duty of duty,” I answered honestly. Because a professional cannot judge anything from hearsay or from a press release. And one cannot help but notice when someone is nailed to a cross at his own request. Whoever this person is. Moreover, when the most famous gallerist in the country provides an artistic space under his jurisdiction for this.

Of course, critics should have responded to Mavromati’s action with a boycott (so as not to encourage disgrace). And so it happened. Almost no one wrote about his first false crucifixion. Only now television has filmed a program simulating the trial of an artist (since he calls himself that, then so will we). There they endlessly discussed the question of the artist’s right to personal expression, that pain caused during an artistic action is not an act of sadomasochism or self-mutilation. That blasphemy has nothing to do with it. To be honest, Mavromati’s act does not seem blasphemous to me, both as an art critic and as an Orthodox person. Maybe I’m wrong this time, although, as a rule, I’m not wrong. In general, we will leave the question of blasphemy to the offended believers, noting only that deliberately inflicting pain on oneself is, according to the Christian norm, a sin, but not a reason for prosecution. And let’s consider the artistic significance of the action.

Last Friday, people gathered in the Gelman Gallery, but many of the noted critics were not seen there - they were boycotted. They weren’t expected, but they were really waiting for the operator. Because this action of Mavromati is part of a film about the reaction to his action. There was a “concept” hanging on the wall of the gallery, where in the very first lines Mavromati justifies himself, saying that he knows that he is not the first, that actionism is not in fashion and that artists before him were already engaged in self-crucification. Apparently, Mavromati’s critics got fed up with their contemptuous “yes, that already happened.”

The all-knowing Kommersant spoke about what exactly happened: “The artist is especially sorry because, by world artistic standards, his crime is “ordinary” and even old-fashioned. Back in the early 60s, a group of Austrian artists who entered art history under the term "Viennese actionism" (Wiener aktionismus), frightened the public with its brutal actions. The leader of the movement, Herman Nitsch, repeatedly appeared before the public in the image of the crucified Christ, combining Christian rituals with pagan orgies of animal sacrifice." It is further said that Nitsch served three years in prison for his art, but became famous and rich, and that critics called this art irritart (social art): “it functioned as a social irritant.”

The coldness of Kommersant is easily explained: its correspondent left the gallery at the very beginning of Mavromati’s action, her nerves could not withstand even the crack of the tape that was used to tape the artist to the cross bars. If she had watched how real nails were driven into Mavromati’s palms (I didn’t see what they did with his legs - they blocked the backs of the spectators), how he talked after that some kind of nonsense about Bulgarian Independence Day, where he would go with his action, and then shouted something like “Dance guys” and “Art is pain”, as they dragged him, pale, leaving a trail of blood, to bring him to his senses (the entire crucifixion lasted several disgustingly long minutes), then the note would not have had a contemptuously neutral tone . And writing terms in Latin in brackets would not look so cynical.

In the end, it’s not so important who was the first to paint the crucifix, it’s not so important what and who did in the early sixties. We DIDN'T SEE THIS! And copies never give the right idea because they erase the emotion.

Marat Gelman , and after him Mavromati, see the value of the action precisely in the social reaction. That is, the co-creators of the work of art should be the offended citizens, the court and the prosecutor’s office. If they don’t perform, it turns out that art won’t come out. All this seems like empty speculation, since our society has enough social irritants even without Mavromati. Looking at his agony on the cross (real!), I want only one thing - to ban this horror! To recognize the artist Mavromati as mentally retarded is simply a fool. Prove that he doesn’t know what he’s doing, and give him custody to someone sane.

The spectators present at the action felt uneasy. None of them wanted to see such modern art, much less encourage it. Thus, they came out in defense of Ter-Oganyan , who chopped up icons , only when he was threatened with real imprisonment. Only the compassionate Slava Kuritsyn , nervously twitching his shoulders, tried to treat Mavromati with sympathy. “Still, he suffers for our cause.” Yes, Mavromati suffered for nothing! That's the whole horror. And if he wants fame and money, then I’m ready to organize a fund that pays for the artist’s comfortable life and articles about him. I’m sure many will respond and help Mavromati financially, if only he would stop blabbering.