For some reason I was upset. And all because I recently happened to look through the modern photo products of one Russian news agency. In printed publications these pictures are diluted with advertising and are not very noticeable. And so they create a fairly indicative picture of the life of the country or, more precisely, how the life of the country appears in its official coverage. And what did you think? What if tomorrow we all die from a giant meteorite. And this will be all that remains of our civilization.

First of all, I was interested, of course, in what there was more: "positive" or "negative". More precisely, whether there was "negative" at all. It turned out there was. Naturally, there were many life-affirming shots: Maslenitsa and Sabantuy, a jump from the ballet "Don Quixote" and rockets, an Olympic swim. But there is also a section "Social Problems", and there are a few homeless people and prostitutes. There are anti-globalists face to face with the police, there is a furious Butovo, there are fans against the backdrop of the riot police, there are also air crashes. The reporters are doing their job honestly.

Usually, "negative" generates a more interesting artistic solution than "positive". There is a simple explanation for this: in "negative" there is a conflict, a contrast of something with something, this encourages the brain to compare, the brain works, and they experience purely muscular satisfaction. So the point of view that lovers of negative and critical subjects are smarter than lovers of beauty is, in principle, correct. The idea that smart people are organically closer to a slanderous and dissident approach is also correct. However, the "negative" of modern Russian production somehow did not leave an impression of truth. Beggars against the background of bright billboards and Butovo residents filmed through the ranks of soldiers were very irritating with their predictability. For some reason, there was no freedom of thought or form in this, only a stereotype and a standard.

It smelled strongly of advertising. Conflicts and contrasts are now used in mass culture, in the press, and in cinema. This is a guarantee of saleability: you have to catch the eye.

In general, photographs of "negative" do not guarantee anything dissident. This is now exactly the same conformism. But I still wanted to find something unusual in this mass of photographs. Not like the others.

Well, I found it: a sailor guarding the sea borders. A clear, powerful photo, diagonal guns, a straight back. Not comparable to the bulk of photos, sluggish and lifeless (this is probably because all current reportage photos are taken with an eye on the television picture, which by its nature does not stand still for a minute and, therefore, has no form).

Oh no, the sailor is from 1967. It turns out that this collection also contains old photos.

And then it started: everything I liked even a little bit was filmed no later than 1995. Even the recruits of that same 1995 turned out to be livelier, more dynamic, more unconventional than the recruits of 2006. A yogi joyfully twisting his leg behind his ear, and some professor looking at him with bewilderment? 1988, a blessed wild time. An old surgeon, looking tiredly and unglamorously over his mask? 1966. A father and his little son fooling around on skis? 1970. Fat and cheerful weavers exceeding the quota? 1976.

This was, in most cases, Soviet propaganda photography. But for some reason there was more naive truth in it than in today's nature photography.

Maybe there was less advertising back then. Or maybe people's eyes were just different.

Face to face with negativity