Will the entire agenda of culture in Russia be reduced to money?

The theme of the year of culture in Russia was quickly reduced to money. Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky formulates the main task of the “cultural year” is extremely simple: “We must turn the“ budget recipient ”driven into the corner of the economy”

The main event of the approaching 2014 in the Russian public consciousness for several years has been considered the Winter Olympiad for several years. Politics, analysts, publicists and bloggers are primarily occupied by its sporting aspects. Discussions about the upcoming Olympiad are mainly conducted around the development of budget money allocated for its preparation: who disperses them, how effectively spent, what similar projects are ongoing abroad, who will win in the winnings ... In general, taking into account the morals of domestic managers, the approach is quite common. And suitable for other significant events.

There is money - there are no principles

In 2014, Russia will have to survive the event, which is almost comparable with the Olympiad by the scope of the plans. And in one respect, it is certainly a larger one - the Olympic Games in Russia will last several weeks, and this event is a whole year. By decree of Vladimir Putin, 2014 was declared the Year of Culture in Russia. And this is a serious prize race. Here you need to be the first to be at the start rather than at the finish.

Russian cultural life, perhaps, no longer surprises that in it, as in many other areas, almost everything is measured by money, assets, real estate objects and other material and tangible values. So the topic of the year of culture in Russia was quickly reduced to money. The Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky formulates the main task of the “cultural year” is extremely simple: “We must turn the“ budget recipient ”into the corner of the economy.” And almost the main content of the Ministry of the Ministry in recent months, according to the minister, was the execution of the May decrees of the president on raising wages to cultural sector workers.

It is significant: not the idea of ​​culture was proposed by cultural figures, and not even its minister, but the head of the Federation Council Valentina Matvienko. Moreover, she substantiated her proposal by the general problems of the state and society - the crisis of morality, spirituality, and morality. To get out of the crisis “can only help appeal to the highest values ​​of culture and art”, “it is time to make a culture of a priority in the country, to adopt a cultural policy strategy.”

But although the year of culture is getting closer and closer, what is the strategy of cultural policy - it does not become clearer. But according to the “main areas of budget policy for 2014 and the planning period of 2015 and 2016”, published on the website of the Ministry of Finance, in 2014-2016, substantial additional budget allocations are provided for improving the remuneration of health workers, education, culture, science and social services in 2014, 126.5 billion rubles in 2015, in 2015, in 2015, in 2015, in 2015, in 2015, in 2015, in 2015, in 2015, in 2015, in 2015, in 2015, in 2015, in 2015 181.2 billion rubles - in 2016). The average salary in culture should grow from the current 12 to 27 thousand rubles.

The total expenses of the budget system of the Russian Federation for the section “Culture and Kinematography” should also steadily grow: in 2013 they are scheduled for 371 billion rubles, in 2014-392.3 billion, in 2015-435.3 billion, in 2016-477.8 billion rubles. And although the percentage of cultural expenditures in the budget is planned without growth - from year to year 1.5%, it is still twice as high as, for example, than the percentage of physical education and sports that seem to some publicists almost the main priority of modern Russia.

By the way, the share of expenses for “culture and cinematography” in relation to GDP should even decrease in the near future - from 0, 6% in 2013 to 0.5% in 2014-2016. But in absolute terms, state allocations for culture are very impressive.

The plans of the Ministry of Culture have many expensive projects: to build 50 regional cultural centers, hold competitions and events in support of talented children, support the development of cultural and cognitive regional tourism, subsidize excursions for schoolchildren in the historical cities of the country, and support projects to preserve the historical appearance of small cities. The Ministry will allocate 50 grants of 5 million rubles to maintain projects of regional creative groups; 50 grants of 5 million rubles for the creation of new expositions for museum projects; 50 grants of 3 million rubles to support patriotic shares and competitions.

Competitions for the right to dispose of impressive money, control and direct financial flows - we get even brighter than the Olympic competitions. And the struggle for the right to meet the Year of Russian Culture in the chair of the Minister of this very culture will become aggravated day by day. Actually, it has already become aggravated: any resonant event in the field of culture has been instantly acquires a scandalous shade in the media for more than six months, is accompanied by public appeals to public opinion or to the country's leadership - the process has gone, the participants joined the race. The right to manage by budget billions is worth it, and here it will soon be not up to the principles of cultural policy.

The production of meanings or the distribution of dough

Meanwhile, if these principles are not defined, then even billions of budget infusions will only help employees of the cultural sphere pull up the salary level to the average in the country. No "cultural breakthrough."

But what are the principles of cultural policy in modern Russia, perhaps no one knows. It’s not to consider endless conflicts on the basis of state financing of certain projects, the notorious “optimization” or a shuffling of leading creative personnel, again not dispensed with scandals. It would be possible to consider the “prototomob” of cultural policy voiced by Vladimir Medinsky by the transformation of culture into a special sphere of state investments, but again it is not clear what dividends the investor should count on. If on purely economic, then the “invisible hand of the market” will inevitably strangle culture, and only pop culture will survive. If only on moral and moral, then who and how will determine, are the investments successful? Without clear landmarks, any state financing of the cultural sphere will sooner or later begin to be perceived by the state as an inexperienced spending of money, which will give rise to the desire to minimize these expenses.

However, perhaps that is why the meaningful strategy of cultural policy in Russia does not appear for so long? According to tradition, the culture is still supposed to finance, and in an insufficient space, without a clear coordinate system, it is more convenient to control streams.

So the issue of priorities of national cultural policy is not at all abstract and not academic. Their absence of the state is expensive. And to formulate this question is simple: what is a culture for the state - the place of production of meanings or the place of distribution of money?

The term "cultural policy" is younger than the phenomenon that it denotes. This definition appears in the documents of UNESCO in 1967: "A set of operational principles, administrative and financial activities and procedures that ensure the basis of state actions in the field of culture." Note that even then we understood that "the initial condition for the development of a policy in the field of culture is to achieve consent between official, creative, social forces in relation to the priority of the goals of cultural development." Alas, modern Russia cannot boast of such consent.

Among the elements of the cultural policy of the state, experts identify the distribution of grants and bonuses, the system of employment and the creation of workplaces in the field of culture, the creation of cultural infrastructure, and the formation of the legislative and regulatory framework.

Dispute of models in one head

In Europe, back in the 70s, they understood: a given set of cultural values ​​does not comply with the principles of democracy, this is the imposition of a majority of the culture of an elite minority. A new principle of cultural policy is formulated: the democratization of culture. The slogan "Culture for all" is replaced by the slogan "Culture for everyone."

In the 1980-1990s, the now-inspiring Minister of Medina, the theory of investment in culture, is also formulated. Experts note that the revival of culture in cities and regions after some time begins to contribute to the prosperity of depressed territories. This truth is recorded in the documents of UNESCO and the Council of Europe. European experts conclude: "Any cultural activity and any investment in culture have an inevitable socio-economic effect and go for the benefit of society as a whole." True, in comparison with the interpretation of investment in the culture “according to Medinsky”: “Let we irrevocably allocated 50 million per film. And he earned 300 million at the box office ” - they look too straightforward.

In the modern world, experts identify several models of cultural policy. There is a liberal model that determines the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of cultural goods. The “cultural industry” prevails in the “market of cultural goods”, and its main players are private funds, institutions, philanthropists. So in particular, a cultural life in the USA is arranged.

There is a state-educational model: in the field of culture, the state dominates, it also controls it-with the help of laws, government agencies and finance. So it was in the countries of the social camp, so - in France and Sweden. Creative and innovation that are not approved by the state is always in question, but the state ensures the survival of the cultural sphere.

Of course, the “liberal” and “state” models rarely exist in a “pure” form. For Germany, for example, a decentralization model is characteristic: budget financing is carried out by regional and local authorities, and the center acts only as an additional source of funds. In the UK, Scandinavian countries, Canada operates a “outstretched arm” model: the government, determining the total amount of state documentation for culture, is not involved in their distribution, independent committees and expert groups are engaged in this. It is believed that such a system protects art from political pressure or illegal censorship.

The “paternalistic” model of cultural policy is repelled by socialist ideology, which understands culture as an ideological activity, which is under the full control (and full support) of the state. Formula of the paternalistic model: state patronage in exchange for ideological loyalty.

In some countries, various models of cultural policy coexist. But perhaps in Russia the absence of clear landmarks is manifested especially clearly. When the same Vladimir Medinsky talks about culture as an investment sphere that will bring income and provide for itself, he acts as a supporter of the “market”, a liberal model. When he calls on experts and members of various public councils to determine what cultural projects and directions to finance, he implements the concept of an “outstretched arm”. And when he says (regarding the scandal with the film Mindadze) that the state should finance only that which corresponds to its ideological attitudes, adding: “The liberals say that ideology should not be, they apparently want us to chew the grass” - he actually acts as an ardent supporter of the “paternalist” model.

Is it possible to create a harmonious system of cultural policy of the state, when the Minister of Culture tries to “steer” it in three mutually exclusive directions, is a rhetorical issue.

Who "drives the bald"

Probably, it is precisely the absence of a logically constructed, clearly formulated, understandable to all participants in the process of cultural policy of the state that the terrifying number of scandals, conflicts and even a “showdown” that produces (instead of the notorious “cultural meanings”) is explained. It is clear that no cultural policy will save from individual bad manifestations of human nature, and if people tend to solve creative problems with splashing acid in the face of artistic leaders, then not the state and not the ministry are to blame. However, the lack of intelligible understanding - that in the whole variety of cultural life it is necessary to maintain, preserve what to rely on - leads to new scandals and losses in terms of the country's international cultural image. The musical world is still perplexed why the international festival of symphonic orchestras ceased to exist, founded several years ago with the participation of Yuri Laptev, the then adviser to the President of the Russian Federation on culture and art. The festival supported the status of Moscow and Russia as centers of world musical life, the government allocated special means for its implementation - and the Ministry of Culture considered it “inappropriate”, and the festival, which managed to gain popularity in the world, was simply abolished.

Approximately the same reasons were for another loud scandal in the cultural sphere - the so -called “Reorganization”, it is also “optimization” of research institutes of the Ministry of Culture. First, a project of merging of all institutions was thrown into the scientific community, then the requirements of “optimization”, reduction and “demand” of research were sounded. Probably, the ministry hoped to advance in the implementation of presidential decrees on raising salaries in the cultural sphere. But the cavalry attack on authoritative centers of fundamental science caused a real riot in the scientific environment, which Vladimir Tolstoy had to extinguish, the current presidential adviser in culture and art. Plane of "Mergers-Generations" were declared irrelevant. However, in all the institutes of the Ministry of Culture, the reductions and a change of leadership began, if not a personnel strip.

It is significant that with all “optimization”, the salary does not increase at all, and even decreases, only the salary of the new appointments of the ministry is growing. It is hitherto it is unknown whether Vladimir Medinsky will be able to force scientists to comply with the applied orders of the ministry, but the fact that in a matter of months he managed to forever quarrel with the scientific community is undoubtedly. Yes, and how else people can relate to the minister whose many years of work he calls “profanity”, and then will be attached: “Let them work. The main thing is that they work, and not to drive a bald. ”

According to Medinsky’s own admission, the ministry has gone to the “optimization” of scientific institutes for a whole year. If the experience of execution of decrees on improving the financial situation of cultural workers is extended to all other spheres of culture, it can be expected that the riots of the “optimized” will gradually cover the entire industry.

And where the “optimization” has not yet reached, it is replaced by invigorating personnel decisions. Emissars of the Ministry are forced to urgently fly to Petrozavodsk in order to “extinguish unrest” regarding the hasty removal from the post of director of the Kizh Museum-Reserve. Then the minister himself is forced to give explanations about the unexpected resignation of the general director of the Bolshoi Theater Ixanov. Then a scandal begins regarding the hypothetical dismissal of the director of the Museum of the Kino Naum Kleiman, whose place was intended for the next “effective manager”. Of course, the reasons can be invented for everything, especially with the help of the magic words “optimization”, “rotation”, “innovation”. However, the law of communicating vessels is very well in the cultural environment, and other explanations quickly spread through these vessels. In the end, all this can quickly lead both voters and elected to the simple question: do we need such a “culture” for a year?

Instead of the concept of cultural policy, the minister supplies us with its curious fragments. Then he declares, almost literally repeating Lenin: "I really consider the movie a key, most important area of ​​work of the ministry." It will offer instead of exhibitions of works of art “by the old fashioned way” to treat the audience with interactive shows, because “the process of gaining knowledge should bring pleasure” ...

Perhaps the only statement of Vladimir Medinsky, which has attracted the favorable attention of specialists in recent months, is his promise to resign if by 2018 it is not possible to raise salaries in culture to the middle level in the country. Judging by the abundance of protest petitions, scandals and intrigues in the field subordinate to the Minister, this moment may come much earlier.

One can assume a different background of all these violent events, but with the same outcome: Vladimir Medinsky was designed to “clean the clearing”, “optimize” finances, conduct scandalous personnel permutations, etc. And when he copes with this task, he will give way to one who can calmly reap the fruits of his labors.

Run to a plate with a golden chip

As those who can change Medinsky, experts call several candidates. The position of Vladimir Tolstoy, the current adviser to the President of the Russian Federation on culture and art. В отличие от Мединского, он не продуцирует вокруг себя конфликтных ситуаций, ладит с деятелями культуры различных направлений. Умея защищать «в высших сферах» интересы культуры, Толстой, опять-таки в отличие от Мединского, не становится для «сфер» раздражителем и источником тревожной либо негативной информации. Участвуя в десятках совещаний по решению самых различных, в том числе и не «чисто культурных» проблем, Владимир Толстой приобретает ценный опыт культурного администрирования. Но выступать в роли советчика и вдохновителя — это одно, а ежедневно «разруливать» сложные проблемы и конфликты интересов в амплуа чиновника, который в случае чего может и «осадить» мастеров культуры, и задать им хрестоматийный вопрос «С кем вы?» (с чем вполне справляется Владимир Мединский) — несколько другое. Да, очень может быть, что такая роль и не по душе Владимиру Толстому.

Большую активность «в сферах» проявляет и председатель «культурной» комиссии Общественной палаты Павел Пожигайло. Помимо разнообразной деятельности в Общественной палате Пожигайло инициирует различные культурные и околокультурные проекты (памятник Столыпину, монумент солдатам Первой мировой войны, Хоровое общество и др.). Весьма вероятно, что все это делается с прицелом на министерскую перспективу, тем более что проекты укладываются в беспроигрышное русло «государственничества и патриотизма». Однако кандидатура Пожигайло на пост министра культуры, если до этого дойдет дело в реальности, может быть встречена в штыки «либеральным» крылом российского культурного сообщества.

На том же «почвенническом» поле давно уже взращивает свои культурные плоды Никита Михалков. Степень его влиятельности заставляет причислить и его к гипотетическому списку кандидатов. Режиссер, успешно смотрящийся в роли нештатного «идеолога государства Российского», теоретически вполне может примерить на себя и штатную должность.

Как бы то ни было, «на культурном фронте» в ближайшие месяцы ожидается оживление. Наступление Года культуры, увеличение бюджетных ассигнований и необходимость формулирования, наконец, «государственной идеи» и ускорения общероссийской самоидентификации (при виде поднимающей голову и берущей себя в руки либеральной оппозиции эти нужды должны осознаваться политическим руководством все острее, быстрее и отчетливее), кадровые перемены на культурно-идеологическом направлении практически становятся неизбежными.

Паруйр ДАВТЯН ,

художник-концептуалист