"Murka" as evidence

I thought for a long time how to respond to a non -trivial situation that has developed around the performance of Murka with a Permian choral chapel of boys. It is clear that I have no right to be silent - they expect me to at least from me that I will voice my position.

In the story with Murka there are at least three aspects.

First: in the choral chapel of the boys they learned the "Murka". Learned - and learned. This is the work of the chapla itself and no one else. The chapel is designed to learn songs there. Which? The question concerns exclusively the chapel itself. This is a cultural institution that has every right to free creativity. If someone believes that he has the right to determine, dictate, form the repertoire of the chapel, then he is deeply mistaken. This was not given the right to anyone - neither the state nor the municipality (who is the founder of the chapel), nor various kinds of zealots of social morality. The only subject who has the right to take an interest in the repertoire is the parents of those boys who come to the chapel. But, I repeat, it is precisely to ask what is quite justified from the point of view of the priority of parents in the issue of raising a child. Perhaps the chapel and parents diverge in some ways, and this is only a question of their relationship. Parents can take the child and give him to another cultural institution, which is quite normal. Everyone else has nothing to do with it. I repeat once again: the creative policy of the chapel is only the Capella itself. Everyone else may agree with her or disagree.

The second aspect: the execution of Murki is recorded on the video by the journalist "Salt", and later - posted on the website of the newspaper. Here, too, everything is extremely clear for me: the media is a universal social mirror. Journalists only reflect what surrounds us. Mirrors are different: straight, crooked, convex, concave - the most diverse. But all these are mirrors, and their task is to reflect. And if we “correct” them, we will not only break them, but also cut ourselves. Do not like the mirror - either do not look, or use others, or correct the physiognomy. There is no other. In general, the Salt journalist did his job, and I simply have no questions to him as a professional.

Third aspect: public resonance. This is perhaps the most contradictory. What only about the chapel and about the journalists of the “salt” did not say, which only they were not accused by the homegrown moralists. As a rule, all the reasoning of these “Tartufs” ends with “constructive” sentences such as “punish”, “prohibit”, “stop”, etc. What is surprising, this is proposed, inter alia, journalists. Apparently, the habit of bending is ineradicable.

I am far from the popularization of thieves, which I have repeatedly spoke about, including "salt". But now the matter is not in him, but that someone constantly wants to assign the right to decide what to sing, what to dance, what to play and what holidays to celebrate. Apparently, Mr. Luzhkov laurels haunt. Unless the trust of Mr. Luzhkov has recently lost, and our irreplaceable zealots of public morality never possessed them. But, as they say, God is a judge. Is Murka a part of culture? Of course, yes! Should we accept this work? Of course not!

In fact, I did not accidentally call the last, third aspect to the most contradictory. The fact is that the negative reaction of the part (I repeat - part!) The public is, with all this, a very positive phenomenon. This public, not wanting it, works on the development of cultural space in Perm, saturating it with an additional resource of attention.

In a word, life continues.

Materials on the topic:
- “ Hello, my Murka! "
- Glavred "salt": I and my "murka"
- The monologue of Alexander Lyubimov: “ Well, the boys sang“ Murka ” - so what? "
-Murki on Full Temim