Further - silence

"Manifesto-10": for and against

Until August 16, Manifesta -10 is the European Biennale of Contemporary Art, which should take place in the summer of 2014 in St. Petersburg at the Hermitage site, was the subject of discussion only among curators, artists and some journalists. Over the past two weeks, the fate of the future exhibition has turned into an almost the most discussed topic on the network, which, however, far beyond the boundaries of the problems of modern art. On August 15, Manifesta Foundation officially announced the name of the curator of the anniversary Biennale-it was the German art manager Kasper König, who headed the Ludwig Museum for 12 years in Cologne (read more about König in an article by Leah Adashevskaya ). And the very next day, a petition appeared on Change.org (its author- Irish curator and critic Noel Kelly), addressed to the organizers of Manifesta- 10 and requiring Biennale from St. Petersburg to any other European city as a sign of condemnation of homophobic laws adopted by local deputies. Or postpone the Biennale "until the restoration of human rights." A little later, another petition appeared on the same portal, this time in support of Manifesta in St. Petersburg: it was initiated by the student of the Smolny Institute of Free Arts and Sciences Elizaveta Matveeva. On her Facebook page, she commented on this idea as follows: “An attempt to boycott the exhibition is, in essence, an attempt to deprive Petersburg of a unique platform for cultural dialogue both within the country and with the international community. For us, first of all, the inhabitants of St. Petersburg, but also for all those who are not indifferent to his fate, it is important to support the initiative of conducting “Manifesto-10” in Russia and the possibility of an open dialogue. We urge everyone to sign this petition in support of the “manifesto-10” in the Hermitage in the summer of 2014. Otherwise, this is fraught with irreversible consequences. ”

The reaction of the Hermitage XXI Century Foundation to the initiative appeared on the Web was predictable: the task of Manifesta is to build bridges between the West and the East, the search for a common language with a local artistic environment, and most importantly - the public. And - no policy. “Manifesto is not engaged in propaganda, does not shock and is not introduced into the country's cultural contexts, but to convince, to show, to show the need for tolerant, tolerant and conscious cultural policy is its main goal and task.”

Meanwhile, the idea of ​​a boycott Manifesta- 10 is now actively discussed in an artistic environment, but it prevails that even if most artists are decided on a boycott, this will hardly lead to a large international scandal and even more so- transferring Biennale to another city. As critic Maria Chekhonadsky rightly notes, for Manifesta Foundation Russia is nothing more than a money bag. Therefore, the search for a compromise and smoothing of all existing corners is the main task for Europeans. It is this consideration that many experts explain the protracted choice of the Manifesta -10 curator. As you know, they became Casper König - a figure is largely compromised. Obviously, they expect from him not at all radical art, but a political correct curatorial statement in the spirit of "May the world will be around the world." Although Manifesta is famous for the opposite - traditionally, it raises the most acute social, political, cultural problems of the region where local authorities decide to hold it. The critic Leah Adashevskaya in his article “According to internal attitudes and preferences” writes: “Back in 2007, König formulated his position on museum projects:“ The museum exhibition should always establish a connection with the museum’s own collection, placing it in the center or interpreting, thereby raising the dialectical problems of the museum ”as the place of storage and space of our time.” In addition, according to the leader of the art platform "What to do?" Dmitry Vilensky (Vilensky himself in 2005 boycotted the Moscow Biennale of Contemporary Art, protesting against the exclusion from the international curatorial group Viktor Misiano), Manifesta will have a great influence on the part of Russian organizers who have no experience with such large -scale projects of contemporary art: “They will do everything possible to enter the“ manifesto ”in comfortable rhetoric The Commandations of the “Olympic Games of Modern Art” (it was for this sign that the St. Petersburg administration of the city bought this event), and whether the “manifesto” will be able to leave this and how, will show the near future ”(see the full text of the letter here ).

The artist Dmitry Vrubel, who has been living in Germany for many years and traditionally supports all protest actions, answers the conversations about the boycotts in Russia: “Putin wanted to shit for all these cultural and sports boycotts. Only a boycott from us - European consumers of his gas and his oil will act on it. But we won’t go to such a boycott, because we all really want to eat and sleep sweetly. ”

Boycott as an artistic gesture

The story with a possible boycott Manifesta- 10 is a good reason to look back and recall how similar actions in Russia and some neighboring countries of the former social camp, similar to us in a political, economic, cultural plan, ended.

Most often, the calls for the boycott from the Russian art community sounded and continue to sound in relation to Moscow Biennale and two main art prizes-the state “innovation” and the private Kandinsky (the founder of the latter is the cultural fund of the “Arthronika” businessman and collector of Shalva Breus). So, in 2008, a scandal erupted around the Kandinsky Prize (the “Project of the Year” nomination) of paintings by the ultra-right artist Alexei Belyaev-Gintovt from the Rodina-Dech series, frankly glorifying Stalinism. The jury's decision gave rise to a wave of discontent in the professional community, which, however, did not prevent the disgraced artist from getting around competitors and still get a bonus. In protest, some artists, among whom were Arseny Zhilyaev, Maria Sumnina, Mikhail Leikin, announced the Kandinsky boycott prize. In 2012, the story with the boycott of the award repeated, however, with a smaller scandal. This time, the indignation of the art community was caused by the absence of the Pussy Riot punk group nominated by the art critic Irina Kulik in the “Project of the Year” category in the Long List of the Clip “The Virgin, Povin”. The photographer Igor Mukhin and the Electroboutique group, which entered the long list, refused to protest the premium in protest. After some time, they were supported by other colleagues - artists Anton Nikolaev and Mikhail Kosolapov refused to participate in the nomination (Anton Litvin’s design project), motivating his decision by the fact that the Kandinsky Prize is “ethically not accustomed”. The lack of Pussy Riot in the list of nominees for the prize, then many regarded the censorship by the organizers as an act of censorship, meanwhile the founder of the Shalva Breus prize explained this by the fact that the project of the punk group did not gain enough vote. As a result, the prize went to the artist Grisha Bruskin (“Time“ Ch ”” project) and the AES+F art group (video work “Holy Allegory”). In August of this year, the idea to boycott the Kandinsky Award sounded again, but in a fairly unexpected context. Shalva Breus announced the closure of the paper version of the Arthronika magazine , demanding from the editorial members to write a statement of care of his own free will. Information immediately leaked to the media, and soon the following appeal appeared on the page of the former journal of Gleb Napenko on Facebook : “Dear friends, dear Shalva Petrovich Breus, we are very concerned about the news that the employees of the journal“ Arthronika ”were demanded first of their own free will, and later, when they refused, they began to threaten them dismissal for absenteeism. If the dismissal does not pass according to all the laws with the payment of compensation, as well as if all the authors who worked on the last number of the magazine will not be paid by the fees due to them, then it will be reasonable and correct to boycott the Kandinsky-2013 premium and projects in the “drummer”, to which we will call all the participants in the art community. ” Thanks to this statement or despite him, the publisher and the editors parted peacefully - by agreement of the parties, and the idea of ​​another boycott disappeared by itself - as unnecessary. Apparently, to a new information occasion.

Putin wanted to shit for all these cultural and sports boycotts. ”

Not without calls for a boycott in relation to another art prize - state - “innovation”. The most loud history was the exclusion of the Moscow protest art group “War” from the short-list of the prize in 2011. Their action “X ... in captivity at the FSB” was nominated in the category “work of visual art”, but at the last moment it was outside the list of finalists. The formal reason for the exclusion was called a violation of the “technical regulation” (one of the leaders of the art group Alexei Plutzer-Sarno called the participation in the state-owned depth). The reaction to such a decision of the organizing committee was the intention of artists and experts to boycott "Innovation". As a result, the war group “War” was returned to the short list, and their project received a prize as the best work of visual art of 2010. In 2011, the “war” announced the boycott of the 4th Moscow Biennale. The reason for such a decision was that on one of the Biennale sites the action “Lobby of garbage” of former participants in the art group Peter Verzilov and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, who, according to Alexei Plucer-Sarno, did not have the right to speak under the War brand. In his LiveJournal, he then wrote that "the war was boycotting the prostitution of the Moscow biannale." The story turned out to be local and to any serious consequences-neither for the artists themselves, nor for Biennale-did not bring.

Meanwhile, the boycott as a feedback tool and the legal mechanism of influence on certain institutions can be very effective. This, in particular, spoke about this at the Pervomaisky Congress of creative workers in the Sakharov Center in the same 2011, where the idea of ​​creating a trade union of creative workers was discussed. The artist Chaim Sokol then mentioned the importance of applying the practice of a boycott as an integral right of a professional community: “As soon as an artist, translator, curator, worker, etc. He agrees to participate in the exhibition or begins cooperation with the gallery, he (it) enters into the zone of labor relations, which can and should be drawn up by an employment contract. The task of the trade union is to help in case of non -compliance with these contracts. You can act within the framework of labor legislation, and, if necessary, organize a boycott of the gallery at the international level - for example, at fairs. The main thing here is solidarity, no matter how naive it sounds. ” Since then, a lot has been talked about solidarity within the Russian art community. For example, in 2012, Activists Denis Mustafin and Alexei Knedlyakovsky came up with the establishment of a new art prize “Signal”, which was supposed to become an alternative to the Kandinsky prize and “Innovation”, thus uniting all the artists who were not engaged by the authorities and the Moscow art test. Its main difference from other awards was declared complete independence from the state and private capital - the premium fund should be formed by the nominees themselves. “Artists, especially functioning without support for institutions and peremptorly opposing the system, are increasingly rejecting the artistic ghetto,” activists said . It was assumed that artists will be able to nominate themselves for a prize, having at least one implemented project in the portfolio. However, the idea of ​​the organizers failed, the “signal” did not become a full-fledged alternative, but all participants in the art process are still talking about the need for a new independent prize for Russian artists. Endless attempts to boycott certain large institutions and thereby declaring themselves and their independence - excess confirmation of this.

“In the Ukrainian art environment, a strict division has occurred today - one part calls for the Institution“ Mystetsky Arsenal ”, and the other, on the contrary, proposes to cooperate further with it.”

The practice of boycotts of large art institutions and the reaction to them are indicative not only in Russia. It is appropriate to recall the recent story with the boycott of the “Mystetsky arsenal”. In July 2013, a scandal broke out in Kyiv around the exhibition “Great and Majestic”, dedicated to the 1025th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'. On the eve of the visit of high guests, led by President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych, one of the works - “Koliivna: The Last Court” by Vladimir Kuznetsov, depicting officials, police and priests, the director of the “Mystetsky arsenal”, Natalya Zabolotnaya, ordered to paint in black paint. Zabolotnaya’s act, which she herself regarded as an artistic act, caused a flurry of indignation from the Kyiv public: the protesters gathered at the walls of Arsenal with black rectangles carved from cardboard and paper, as a sign of solidarity with the affected artist. The initiative group of local artists demanded the official design of relations with the exhibition site and guarantees of freedom of expression, but in response received only threats (read more about the conflict in the article by Alexei Radinsky ). Kiev artist Nikolai Ridny describes the current situation: “In the Ukrainian art environment, a strict separation has occurred today - one part calls for the Institution“ Mystetsky Arsenal ”, and the other, on the contrary, proposes to cooperate further. With the help of a boycott, the very fact of censorship is encouraged to recognize the fact of censorship, which so far is covered by some creative disagreement, as well as force the institution to conduct transparent cooperation with curators, artists and other cultural environmental workers (conclude contracts, pay fees for participation in exhibitions, etc.). These requirements are absolutely fair and, I think, are also acutely actual in relation to the politics of many Russian institutions that violate the rights of creative workers. The only problem is that the effectiveness of the boycott is achieved by the presence of most participants, and solidarity is what is clearly not enough in the artistic environment today. If you return to the same example of Kuznetsov, then none of the modern Ukrainian artists who participated with him in a censored exhibition did not support a colleague and did not take his work from a shameful context. ” Such a reaction, on the one hand, is amazing, and the other is quite natural. The artist Nikita Kadan says that in Arsenal, “everyone can shut up a mouth without explanation - this depreciates any statement that is officially present on its territory.”

Vladimir Kuznetsov himself sees the main problem of Arsenal and its leaders that they seek to “go” to Europe with the help of “repressive methods and ideological zombies of visitors and participants in exhibitions”.

Obviously, the same desire can be seen in the actions of the Russian authorities, who adopt homophobic laws with one hand, and the other invite the world to the Olympics in Sochi. The calls to boycott the "favorite toy" of Vladimir Putin have been sounding for several months. The British actor and writer Stephen Fry and the Swedish musician Alexander Bard have already joined the Anti -Chinese campaign. However, this is also rather like a beautiful artistic gesture with an amendment to a local political landscape.