| The first prizes in the field of contemporary art were awarded Three events at the end of last week were conducive to the popularization of contemporary art and art institutions in society.
The loudest was the presentation of the first prize in the field of contemporary art “Innovation”. It was established by the Federal Agency for Culture and Cinematography of the Russian Federation and the State Center for Contemporary Art (NCCA). The formal side of the award ceremony differed favorably from the substantive side. And this probably reflected the peculiarities of the Russian understanding of the principles of prestige and incentive. Understanding is largely still purely decorative.
The main hall of the new building of the NCCA was decorated as an Ostankino studio, from which some holiday show is broadcast. Invited nominees, presenters, and critics (there was a dress code badge on the ticket) were seated at round tables according to family lists. The waiters served everyone with pineapples and champagne. The spotlights were shining. A dozen video monitors flashed with videos about the nominees. The ceremony was broadcast by video cameras to other floors of the NCCA. Alexei Aiga's ensemble played on a stylish stage, then the languid host of the ceremony, Renata Litvinova, came out. Thanks to the design of Alexey Bokov and the support of Raiffeisen BANK, we had the first award ceremony for masters of plastic arts, for which there was no shame. Great.
The main prize is for “the best work of visual art” (equivalent to 250 thousand rubles). Thank God, the laureate named by Mikhail Shvydki turned out to be a symbol of universal reconciliation (despite the fact that his work is dedicated precisely to conflicts - the wounds of the Russian-Chechen war). The best among the best (the group of nominees was indeed very strong) for the ten-meter canvas “Chelsea - Terek” was named Alexei Kallima, a magnificent, virtuoso thirty-seven-year-old artist who rehabilitated the great plastic tradition of the past (from the proto-Renaissance to Goya and expressionism) for the sake of expressing it in the language of the most sick , terrible topics of interethnic conflicts and wars. Kallima adheres to the correct idea that the language of art itself provides the strongest opportunity to express one’s moral, ethical, and human position.
However, with the remaining nominations, which were very roughly formulated, everything did not work out so well. The nominations were compiled as a result of the work of the organizing committee and expert council of the competition (the first includes all the main managers of art life, from Mikhail Shvydkoy to Evgeny Zyablov, as well as deputy directors of major museums and art professors; the second includes respected gallery owners, including Elena Selina, Aidan Salakhova, Vladimir Levashov, as well as artists - the guru of conceptualism Nikita Alekseev, Igor Makarevich and curators, including Victor Misiano - the third list - the jury itself: seven people, five Muscovites, three employees of the NCCA, including artistic director Leonid Bazhanov). The first embarrassment occurred when the nomination “For Creative Contribution to the Development of Contemporary Art” included Oscar Rabin and Anatoly Osmolovsky, Vadim Zakharov and Nikolai Polissky, Victor Misiano and Andrei Monastyrsky from different constellations, and sometimes even eras. The prize was given to Oscar Rabin, a legend of unofficial art who has not participated in Russian contemporary art for a long time. It was a prize “For honor and dignity”. At the Oscars and the Golden Mask, it is not awarded on a competitive basis. All the other “creative contribution” nominees simply weren’t in their own company.
Regional projects in the “Curator Project” category also found themselves out of place. Representing the “best of the best”, ambitious projects of the Tretyakov Gallery (“Accomplices”, “Russian Pop Art”) and the Moscow House of Photography (“Invasion”) that claim historical significance, experimental and, by the way, no less charming programs of the Samara Shiryaev Biennale or Video Festival “Empty” was a priori lost. They should have been given a separate track. As a result, Olga Sviblova won in competition only with Andrei Erofeev (Tretyakov Gallery program) with her “Invasion” program. In the “Theory and Criticism” category, the capital was represented only by Andrei Kovalev, but the prize went not to him, but to Olesya Turkina, a researcher in the department of newest trends at the Russian Museum. It is also not very clear by what criteria they were judged: to support good professionals throughout Russia or to celebrate the merits of those who for almost twenty years have been the true chroniclers of all artistic art life in its smallest and finest details? If according to the “chronicle” criteria, then Kovalev has no competitors. After Andrei, the third dear to the entire artistic community (following Monastyrsky and Erofeev) was left without a prize, I heard from jury member Joseph Backstein the phrase that gave me the title of the article: “Alas, the first-called Andrei was not awarded.”
The Ford Foundation and the publisher of the St. Petersburg magazine “New World of Art” (NoMI) Yuri Kalinovsky were awarded for their support of art.
It’s good that today is a double celebration for the main laureate of “innovation” Alexey Kallim: he was also among the ten fellows of the Gelman Foundation (including Alexander Kosolapov, Dmitry Gutov, Georgy Ostretsov).
The presentation of the Marat Gelman Foundation for the Promotion of Contemporary Art, established by three major managers in the arts sector Viktor Bondarenko, Alexander Smuzikov and Marat Gelman, also took place the other day. The Foundation has awarded scholarships to ten good Russian artists with the aim of continuously supporting their creativity and implementing their ambitious projects at the world's most prestigious forums. As one of the founders of the foundation, Viktor Bondarenko, told me at the presentation, I would like the best craftsmen in Russia not to be slavishly dependent on the market. On the contrary, the market should depend on them.
And finally, the third event in the field of support for contemporary art: a round table “Museums of Russia: cultural heritage or cultural capital?” organized by the Vladimir Potanin Charitable Foundation, held as part of the annual competition “Changing Museum in a Changing World.” Directors of Russian museums and curators of projects participating in the competition during the discussion developed the same territory of ideas and meanings: the higher the prestige and quality of art programs, the more convertible the product becomes the result of the museums’ activities. After all, the category of cultural capital, introduced by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, denotes a set of symbolic values that can be exchanged for others. And the value of cultural programs is precisely what the respected competition is responsible for, thanks to which dialogue is established between the most remote museums in Russia and interest in their professional growth is stimulated. Sergei KHACHATUROV |
|
