Translated material
Wordlessness
The next “triumphants” have been named
The winners of the Triumph Prize, awarded for the fifteenth time, were composer Sofya Gubaidullina, film director Eldar Ryazanov, artist Bogdan Stupka and Yuri Shevchuk, referred to in the press release as “poet” and “composer”.If Shevchuk is a composer, then, it seems, it is not in the sense that is meant in this word when talking about the world-famous renovator of the musical language Sofya Gubaidullina. As for the definition of “poet” applied to the “author of texts”, who is remembered mainly for two “fresh” and “semantically capacious” rhyme pairs (“homeland - ugly” and “liked - beautiful”), then it , probably should compensate for the absence of other representatives of the writing tribe in the list of awarded. There is nothing to be surprised - it’s a common thing. There are symbolic technical errors - this is what adorns the latest press release: when calculating the previous “triumphants”, the prose writer Tatyana Tolstaya (2001) and the poet Oleg Chukhontsev, noted only a year ago, were forgotten. It’s simple: on the one hand, we still have a lot of writers, but on the other hand, for a decade and a half (that’s how long “Triumph” has existed) everyone knows that the only future of Russian literature is its relatively recent past, its golden age (1956--1986) “triumph” judges. There are, of course, a few more not triumphant “living classics” (for example, Vasily Belov, Daniil Granin, Alexander Kushner, Vladimir Makanin, Viktor Sosnora, Valentin Rasputin, Boris Strugatsky...), but they already have enough differences (that true), so they can stand in line. There is the eighty-year-old Naum Korzhavin, whose name has undoubtedly gone down in the history of Russian literature, but “history” is one thing, and the “elite”, be it an old one (“officially Soviet” and “liberal-dissident”), or today’s, is quite another; Korzhavin is a stranger to anyone. For fourteen years, the luminaries of Russian art pretended that it did not exist, but they cannot change their views in the fifteenth year of prosperity of the independent prize for the highest achievements! And don’t crown some “young” people (forty, fifty, or even sixty-year-olds) with laurels: the “people” don’t know them (but how they loved us!), they don’t write in our language, and in general , as Korney Ivanovich said, you have to live a long time in Russia...
Okay, she died, so she died. (This is about literature.) But why are there only four prizes and not five? Other arts flourish here, just like in Florence under Lorenzo the Magnificent or in Paris under Louis XIV. (No matter how complex, conflicting, painful trends may have arisen in the theater, cinema, music, and fine arts of recent decades, no matter how heated discussions may have taken place there, no matter how difficult things may sometimes develop within the respective creative communities and/or between “producers” and “ consumers,” in these spheres there was no such ecstatic masochism as the self-funeral writers indulged in. The artists fought for the public and defended the prestige of their class. They simply respected themselves and their work, and achieved a lot of things - with a fair number of reservations. Since Soviet times, the dividing formula “literature and art” has been established in our country. It seems that there is a meaning in it. Our writers are not guided by the same principles as other creative people.) The arts are blooming, but the Triumph jury still saved one prize. .
The fact is that, according to the new rules, only the applicant for whom two-thirds of the judges vote can become the owner of $50,000 (in ruble equivalent), a prize statuette, a diploma and a badge. There are now nineteen masters on the jury, therefore, to win the laureate it was necessary to get thirteen votes. Only four succeeded. This indicates both the high degree of negotiability of the decision-making artelite and its ability to count one move ahead. Wasn’t it an outsider who ordered the introduction of a law in a closed club, which turned out to be too much for the club members? They invented it themselves - there is no one else to do it. Counting other people's money is a vulgar task, but it always seemed to me that it is better to give a gift to an artist (even one who evokes mixed feelings in you) than to leave the amount intended for that in the most wonderful bank. Live forever and learn.
As a result, we received a set of laureates that almost perfectly corresponded to the “triumph” concept. In all its multicoloredness. Thus, Sofya Gubaidullina personifies art that is elite and highly convertible. In the West it is known and performed almost more than in the homeland. Moreover, if the prize was once awarded to Alfred Schnittke and Arvo Pärt, it is simply unthinkable to beat Gubaidullina. How many members of the jury are able to listen to (I don’t say understand and evaluate) at least one of her opuses, only God knows.
On the contrary, the appearance of Yuri Shevchuk among the laureates testifies: “Triumph” is open to art, which not only must be understood by the masses (the “liberal” version of Lenin’s wisdom), but also understandable to the masses (officially the Soviet translation of the same wisdom; the leader of the world proletariat gave it to Clara Zetkin , and she recorded it in German - hence the discrepancies). Boris Grebenshchikov has been awarded for a long time - now, apparently, Andrei Makarevich is next in line. And don’t you dare confuse them with Alla Pugacheva. A completely different story! In any case, until the jury members deem it necessary to add “a woman who sings” to the host of laureates!
Bogdan Stupka is an extraordinary actor (who would argue), but, more importantly, he is a Ukrainian actor. Not only by nationality and current citizenship, but also, so to speak, “essentially.” By awarding it, the judges demonstrate “worldwide responsiveness” and commitment to “friendship of peoples.” At the same time, asserting that true art is above political strife. And unobtrusively demonstrating his independence on the verge of slight opposition.
Well, Eldar Ryazanov directed the timeless “Carnival Night”, “Beware of the Car” and “The Irony of Fate”, not counting other charming films of the Soviet period. For which he received more than one significant award and popular love. A number of Ryazanov’s later films, including Andersen, which has just hit the screens, failed (and will not be able) to shake it. It’s hard and sad to talk about . But what do reviews from film critics mean for members of the Triumph club? Their awards. They give it to whoever they want.
This is especially clear when distributing youth “Triumphs”, where each jury member names his candidate, and the rest silently accept the will of the nominator. If you don’t know (as if you follow the literature) who the playwright and prose writer Lasha Bugadze is (this is not the first time I’ve gotten into trouble with the “young triumphants”) - shame on you. You know that Sukhbat Aflatuni is an average prose writer (but from the very first publications he was caressed and promoted), Andrei Rodionov is a gifted poet, but is far from the first among young people, and Anton Dolin very vaguely resembles a “literary critic” - be silent. And hope that young actors, directors and musicians are rewarded with good reason.
The awards will be presented on January 22, 2007 at the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts. And then - disco. That is, a traditional arts festival.