Translated material
Art is not for art's sake
The idea of what art and non-art are, of the intransigibility of the border between creativity and reality, was overturned by the avant-garde artists of the 20th century - futurists, dadaists, surrealists, oberiuts... Their theories spoke about the exhaustion of the traditional arsenal of artistic forms and that art should create in the real world. Their practices were based on provocation and scandal, but at the same time they did not shy away from political and social pathos. Actionism of the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century continued and developed this experience, but no longer caused such a reaction and such controversy until the Pussy Riot punk prayer service in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.
Differing points of view on the aesthetic nature of this action are characteristic not only of representatives of different political and religious views; representatives of the artistic intelligentsia also continue to argue. On gogol.tv ( http://gogol.tv/video/755 ), poet, prose writer, publicist Lev Rubinstein and artist, theater director Dmitry Krymov share their arguments and doubts.
Lev Rubinstein: Dima, first of all, I am very glad to see you, and I am glad that the Sakharov Center has given us the opportunity to sit and talk.
Dmitry Krymov: Me too.
Lev Rubinstein: ...Nadya Tolokonnikova - let me remind you, this is one of the Pussy Riot group - applied for the so-called parole - parole. Naturally, I think that this will not go through again, and, of course, they will not release it. These are not the people who walk backwards. This is some completely unique situation. In my opinion, even in the Soviet years, the authorities sometimes made back moves, like in chess, but these did not. Apparently, they have such a boyish, criminal mindset that they consider any retreat a sign of weakness and cannot afford it. And taking this opportunity, I just want to ask how you...
Dmitry Krymov: ...how do you feel about this?
Lev Rubinstein: Well, not to parole, but to Pussy Riot in principle, to this action, to this story. I won’t ask how you feel about the fact that they were imprisoned - I know. Do you think this is serious as art and not as a political gesture?
Dmitry Krymov: In order to answer, you need to listen to what they sing, and not the texts pronounced in court - this has nothing to do with art.
Lev Rubinstein: ...it seems to me that it does.
Dmitry Krymov: Yes? So this is art?
Lev Rubinstein: Yes, yes. It's called actionism.
Dmitry Krymov: In principle, I don’t really like it in the form in which I know it. Maybe I don't know everything. But I don't really like what I've heard about them. Why is this art?
Lev Rubinstein: This is art because it is an event, a statement that is declared on the territory of art.
Dmitry Krymov: Is everything that is declared on the territory of art art?
Lev Rubinstein: It seems to me that more or less everything, another question is whether we like it or not, and whether we agree to consider it art, good art.
Dmitry Krymov: (hands Rubinstein a piece of paper) I declare that now I am giving money - you can see that this is a piece of paper.
Lev Rubinstein: Correct, but if I pretend that I believe you, that will be art.
***
Dmitry Krymov: Not every performance is art. I say this, and I feel that I look like a defender of some kind of “art”... The Bolshoi Theater. They threw acid - one might say that this is also art, because it is next to art - one, it has a performance - two, everyone is watching it - three...
Lev Rubinstein: No, it can be art only not from the point of view of the one who made it. You and I, of course, have the right to call this art, but disgusting art.
***
Lev Rubinstein: ...It seems to me that there are no ideal boundaries between art and non-art, but for everyone they exist. For me there are, I can identify them. Ideal art is what its bearer, so to speak, declares to be art.
Dmitry Krymov: And that’s it, is that enough?
Lev Rubinstein: Yes. But I refuse to consider as art anything that, for example, physically touches me - the question of acid. My body is my body, it is outside.
Dmitry Krymov: Well, wait, just like any believer - suppose a believer, true or not - can say that they touched his soul...
Lev Rubinstein: They can. But I refuse.
***
Dmitry Krymov: ... I once went to a museum... We’re not talking about politics now, but with politics everything is clear in relation to Pussy Riot, what are we going to talk about it now?..
Lev Rubinstein: We won’t.
Dmitry Krymov: I went to a museum in America with my friend, whom I respect in the field of art just as much as you do. And we saw in some hall a pile of dust in the corner. And signed. I say: “Yur, explain to me what it is, what is it, why?..”
Lev Rubinstein: This is a problem, right?
Dmitry Krymov: And he says that new milestones are being set. This is Yuri Vashchenko, graphic artist, artist and absolutely divine person. He says new milestones are always being set. Well, what can I say now? New areas of art have been staked out. And the fact that these are some people - museum workers or some kind of global community of respected people - says: yes, now art is in such a territory, it has expanded by 10 cm, say. Now dust - this very dust - is entering the space of art. I thought there was nothing to object to, yes.
Lev Rubinstein: Why object?
Dmitry Krymov: Well, because there is dust! Because this is a museum, it’s next to good, serious paintings.
Lev Rubinstein: There are various critics and jokers about modern art, they often like to give the same example: I come to the Museum of Modern Art and see a pile of crushed bricks, something is blocked. And I ask: “Is this also an object?” And they tell me: “No, it’s being renovated.” And the person says that if he cannot distinguish between a repair and an object, this is not art. But this is not so, because, indeed, art is what we designate as it. It seems to me that in the modern world it is especially important to expand the boundaries of art, because art has a very important function: a function that neutralizes the bacilli of evil. Everything that is located on the territory of art is, by definition, safe. Everything outside the territory of art is potentially dangerous.
Dmitry Krymov: If another person said this, I would be in a furious argument, but you say it so well that I can agree. It matters who you hear it from. But let's assume. They would not speak out against Putin, but against Jews in an Orthodox church, and would call it art. How would you feel about this?
Lev Rubinstein: They wouldn’t name it, because in modern art the theme of xenophobia is, in principle, marginal. It could be like a provocation, yes. You see, they opposed Putin not as artists, but as citizens.
Dmitry Krymov: Oh, it’s a fine line.
***
Lev Rubinstein: Have you ever considered a non-aesthetic object as an aesthetic object?
Dmitry Krymov: I was just at the Hirst exhibition in London - he is an amazing artist, he made a strong impression on me. All these cut up cows, all these flies... There is a small room where exotic butterflies flutter, you enter there - it’s hot, and there are fruits, and live butterflies - on the fruit, it’s so hot that it’s almost impossible to be there, and flowers. Flowers, fruits and butterflies. And gradually you notice that there are many dead butterflies. They are dying before your eyes from this heat. The walls are covered with transparent glue, they sit down and freeze, they are still alive, but they die. They become a picture. It's scary, it's so scary...
Lev Rubinstein: But this is art, right?
Dmitry Krymov: This is art, because the impression is like a series of Shakespeare’s chronicles: everything is being ground up, and you are present at the same time, and you are also in some room.
Lev Rubinstein: Correct. In the same way, radical social gestures perceived precisely in the territory of art are important.
Dmitry Krymov: The Voina group, whose bridge rises, is amazing. What's the difference...
Lev Rubinstein: Wonderful work on the bridge, isn't it?
Dmitry Krymov: Yes, very good. Amazing. Witty and effective. Now you can try to formulate what the difference is...
Lev Rubinstein: Probably simpler. But I say that sometimes the resonance itself also moves into the frame of the work. Shklovsky believed that a literary scandal (and he was a big fan of scandal in the 20s - he always came to a scientific or literary meeting and said some provocative things), that a literary scandal is also a literary genre with its own poetics. There is a poetics of scandal, why not?
Dmitry Krymov: I keep thinking how the bridge differs from the PussyRiot action...
Lev Rubinstein: The bridge is original, I agree. And self-sufficient. And, by the way, it did without much of a scandal.
Dmitry Krymov: I’ll tell you now what the difference is, in my opinion. This can be pathetic on an individual basis. Art, in my opinion, is an image. What they did with the bridge is an image. They didn't write anything. They didn't write: "We are against the KGB." The bridge rose next to the KGB. And here they said in the text: “We are against it.” You know, it’s like in the theater: if you only trust the text, there is no theater, it’s a different kind of art. This is literature. They could write: “Mother of God, save us from Putin.” Five volumes of prayer. That would be art. And here in the genre of happening, or I don’t know what to call it, designed for a subsequent blow, such a complex happening, the grain of which is a word that if replaced... I don’t know, I don’t know, I might get confused.
Lev Rubinstein: Okay.
Dmitry Krymov: Girls, of course, are desperate...
Lev Rubinstein: I know them, they are smart.
***
Lev Rubinstein: ... And finally, I want to ask you. We live in a rather strange time in the socio-political sense, which requires us to make some internal decisions every day. Does it seem to you or not that now for art, including theater, it’s not even social themes that are extremely important, but gestures, I would say?
Dmitry Krymov: I’m surprised that no one has stopped them yet, although it is clear that they were stopped.
Lev Rubinstein: They don’t stop what?
Dmitry Krymov: What, for example, we do. Perhaps this is not provocative enough.
Lev Rubinstein: As a master, don’t you have an internal desire to consciously go for aggravation?
Dmitry Krymov: Make a gesture? To see this terrible reaction?
Lev Rubinstein: I don’t even know why. But is there such a reflex?
Dmitry Krymov: I don’t want to communicate with them.
Lev Rubinstein : Why communicate? They will already be communicating.
Dmitry Krymov: I wouldn’t want to do this to make the performance happen, like the girls, for example, counting on a reaction. Maybe I'm afraid. I don't want to do this kind of art. Even if they were given orders for this, and not sent to prison. This is also a reaction. Five Orders of Glory on your chest if you make a gesture.
Lev Rubinstein: So in this situation, the most important thing for you is just to remain yourself?
Dmitry Krymov: I want to make a Raphael painting. To write it from the face of one of these girls - in my opinion, it was Tolokonnikova. They didn’t just come and sing. These are angelic faces, there is something deeply exciting to me.
Lev Rubinstein: Okay. I asked this question not because I myself know the correct answer to it.
Dmitry Krymov: This is a matter of character, in my opinion.
Lev Rubinstein: Dima, do you separate your professional and civilian components? Let me explain: When you are in Moscow, do you go outside? See what I mean?
Dmitry Krymov: At the demonstration? No.
Lev Rubinstein: No, I’m not going to moralize about this.
Dmitry Krymov: I went once. With Liya Akhedzhakova. I really liked it. Maybe because with her. Maybe because the cars with white ribbons drove beautifully around the ring. It was very beautiful. But no, I don't go. I'm sorry.
Lev Rubinstein: No. Well, I'm walking. But this is not a question of moral qualities, but a question solely of temperament. I'm not sure if I'm right, but I'm walking.
Dmitry Krymov: I am sure that we must somehow fight what we don’t like, everyone depending on their own temperament.
Lev Rubinstein : Everyone knows how, yes.