In society

Student and teacher

August 6, 2013 Mikhail Berg

Regarding the “red light” of Maxim Kantor, a lot has already been said. And the fact that the author is most similar to the graphomaniac , but not the same “who has infuriated”, which Moscow conceptualists initially considered D.A. Prigova with his first conceptual texts. And the condo, normal, largely (and not parody, but quite seriously) repeating the socialist -realistic style and pamphlet primitiveness of Ivan Shevtsov in his novel “Aphids”. And the fact that in the most insane (although, alas, rare) places Cantor resembles Pelevin, with his criticism of “Cargoindleligence” (read, creative class). And the fact that the cantor, like Pasternak in the “Dr. Zhivago”, has a whole historical canvas, with several storylines, where there are swamps with Sakharov Avenue (filed, of course, indignant - the Western agents are working “cookies”); And Stalin and Hitler, their minions and other surroundings, is primitive so that sometimes you think: well, how can an adult write so badly?

It would seem that there is nothing to talk about here, the level of naivety of the author surpasses the funny value of his self-pasodism, if it is not the serious popularity of the novel of the Ura-Patriotic Kantor, who was in demand that were in demand today, when the absurdization of the Putin regime (with its Mizulin and Milonovs) is sometimes generated by obscurantism, quite comparable with obscurantism of the Soviet era, or even exceeding his.

It makes sense to figure out in this popularity (and its sources)

Secret (although what a secret in such stray pseudoralism can be) the author’s motives are understandable: revenge the Contemporary Art community, actual art that did not accept the cantor-artist, but at the same time Western society (the spiritual sponsor of the Contemporary Art and generally liberalism). And their agents (in the Putin's sense of the word, including) - the liberal layer in Russia, which still only bellied, observing the artistic experiments of the offended author. Therefore, in his last novel, the cantor with the passion of the neophyte Prokhanov or Leontiev falls to the values ​​that are considered European, sides the Soviet version of socialism (but not real socialism, which today is the system in most European countries). He is against the “indiscriminate” criticism of Lenin and Stalin, against the belief of the achievements of Russian history and culture, he is because SOOLOCK is the highest phenomenon of the spirit of the Russian society, and all his critics are bribed by the West or new Russian capitalists (in the designation of the author - thieves). And right here it would be possible to proceed to the analysis of the current state of Russian society, which raises the most primitive patriotic crafts on the shield (the rhyme with the cantor is also formed by modern cinema sizes like “Gagarin. The first in space” and “Legend No. 17” about hockey player Kharlamov).

But the fact of the matter is that no matter how ridiculous the stylistic embodiment of the seemingly primitive ideas of Cantor, these ideas themselves are quite in demand, and not only the masses within Russia, but also quite successful European philosophers the level of Slavus of Zizhek and Boris Groys. I myself have an article about the socialist utopia , which I found in a monstrously reduced form (or did it seem to me?) As one of the sources of the cantor text along with the expressions “symbolic values” a la Bodriyar and Pierre Bourdier. Let the very concept of “symbolic values” use Cantor incorrectly, he, say, believes that money is real values, and symbolic - loot. In Pelevin, approximately the same move looks ridiculous, Kantor - like almost everything - is ridiculous and pathos.

“The intellectuals took the loot from the hands of thieves, not taking care of how these funds were received - drug trafficking, the robbery of pension funds or the eviction of the poor quarters into even worse slums. The intellectuals justified themselves by simply doing their work - they tell the thieves about the beautiful, write liberal articles, scratch his heels. In the end, someone should scratch the heels of the plowmen-and if you do it qualified, why not take a fee? ”

By the way, I also believe that privatization was dishonorable, that Putin was a direct heir to Yeltsin, that the intelligentsia was largely not able to control the temptation of a lot of money and lost in the 90s. But bringing the ideas to the state of the gutted chicken (like Cantor) does not mean that ideas themselves cannot be discussed (at least, as in demand by left -oriented Russian society) and are assigned.

The main idea of ​​Cantor is to rethink the statement of Soros that bandit capitalism (which is true) has been built in Russia. Or otherwise, that almost all Russian capitalists are thieves (and killers - that is not true). Another, optional, idea (dear to the author’s heart) - that the Russian intelligentsia was sold to this thieves and the West supporting them and became a thieves' (say, creates galleries of modern art, which in fact roof underground casinos). The latter, of course, is the primary nonsense, but I already said that the intelligentsia could not stand the test of money. Another thought of Cantor: crazy Russian capitalism is not Russian (that is, Russians are not responsible for it), but imposed, induced, part of the Russian enslavement project. It is clear that Putin is not to blame, he is only made by the leaders of the liberals, the Anglo -Saxons are primarily.

“The method of growing a tyrant suitable for fighting with him was difficult to obtain a high -quality goose liver: one should feed the goose, and only then extract Fura from it. The tyrants were displayed with artificial methods, supplied them with finances, thoroughly raised them, gave them a couple of local human rights activists to pieces, and only then they declared hunting for a tyrant. Tiranov was nurtured in reserves, in the remote corners of the planet, and at the right moment they showed humanity as a threat to the ideal of democracy: look, this is a dangerous Asian tyrant; Pay attention to his claws! Look at this harmful monster! Oh, how dangerous it is! "

Of course, I am a man of left -wing (in the European tradition) beliefs and I believe that not only Russia was not only the empire - America is largely the empire, the imperial tail is still sticking out of many European democracies. I am far from the conviction that liberalism and the market are able to correct what religion and tradition laid by themselves. Or that liberalism, like a gingerbread, did not use and do not use manipulators of different stripes, but Maxim Kantor, without a doubt, is naive obscurantist, or imperial propagandon, and most likely two in one bottle.

The fact that he is ideologically almost completely withdrawn from Ivan Shevtsov demonstrates the next quote from the teacher :

“I deeply respected you, Osip Davydovich, for your mind, for your erudition. But your nihilistic assessments of Repin, Aivazovsky, Shishkin, fuckers on the Wanderers and their heirs, sorry, are not clear to me. You propose to expand the boundaries of realism from Repin to Signac and Cezanne, to Malevich and Kandinsky. For what? Try to answer this question! Do not answer. And I will tell you why: in order to pull into our art, alien to the people, incomprehensible to the people, false and belittle the masterpieces of genuine. But you must understand that the people will not understand and do not accept Signac, even if you call him a realist. ”

Maxim Kantor, on typologically close (struggle with “cosmopolitanism and stunted in front of the West”), is trying to embody that style, the ideological paradigm that “people will understand and accept”, because “the people are not guilty,” the intellectuals sold and the mamon, the West and the hateers of Stalin are to blame. And the current popularity of his novel (according to sales ratings, at the time of writing this text, “Red Light” was in an honorary 44 place, between the Akunin “Black City”, “Great Gatsby” and New Marinina) suggests that Kantor guessed with ideas and style, no matter how primitive he and the thesmone -mentioned intellectuals seem to me.

In today's Russian society there is a request for reduction, for almost caricature (although why “almost”?) Primitivism. We are not to blame, they are to blame, but at the same time they are not Putin and his dreams, but Cossacks inhabited from behind the ocean. We are Repin, Shishkin, Wanderers, Yarovaya, Zheleznyak; They are Cezann, Kandinsky, Malevich, disagreed, whitewash. Do you think that Repin and Yarovaya are not joining? It only seems to you; Those who understand this a good thing will figure everything out correctly. Once again, Russia is distances not from the West, but from the ideas of rationalism, the cantor tells the direction - go to the red light. In fact, the hint is not needed, the direction has already been chosen.

Photo by Viktor Velikzhanin (ITAR-TASS)