Is the new 1948 awaiting us

The thesis "Russia is not Europe" will not be included in the draft foundations of state cultural policy; According to Vladimir Tolstoy, he "contradicts the style and goals of the document - an attempt to consolidate society." It is difficult to disagree with the president’s adviser: one recent conversation that began with the polemical mention of this thesis did not at all become an example of consolidation. Starting from the entry on the social network, the situation quickly flowed from the virtual world into real, and the consequences, no longer virtual, showed how differently-even in relative communities-understand freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of creativity, freedom in general. It all began with the publication on Facebook by Marina Arshinova, the leading editor of the public relations department of the St. Petersburg Philharmonic named after Shostakovich:

Anyone who is familiar with history understands that this “Russia is not Europe” gives a tremendous chance to be a cheating, impoverished by the ideas and meanings of modern art to get another share of attention, to imitate the struggle and so on, to appeal to historical memory, by the 48th year, to the Zhdanovsky resolution of the “Zvezda” and “Leningrad” and so on, but we recall-but we recall Shostakovich and his colossal take -off for all this, recall the horse police on the premieres of Schnita - and who plays and puts that “Faust” when everything is possible? In short, creators. There will be something valuable-like the “winters of the sacred” Netotnikov-we will not pass by. And just like that on Facebook there is no need to worry.

The record laid the beginning of a stormy discussion and after a day, along with several dozens of reviews, the author was erased. Later, they managed to restore the course of the discussion, but the publication was continued to discuss the very publication - including Facebook by the famous musicologist Olga Manulkina, who was unpleasantly characterized by Arshinova’s position. A few days later, the latter reported that the statements in social networks caused the discontent of her leadership; Refusing to apologize and close her pages, she preferred to file an application for care. Commenting on the situation, Arshinova directly accused Manulkin, who allegedly wrote a complaint to her authorities. The discussion flashed with renewed vigor - some sympathized with Arshinova as a victim for freedom of speech, others defended Manulkin and asked for evidence of her guilt, although they could not. Olga Manulkina is a person and a specialist with an impeccable reputation. It is bitter that it was she who became a victim of meaningless slander.

As a result, the press service of the St. Petersburg Philharmonic officially announced that she did not receive letters that could affect the outcome of the situation. Meanwhile, Arshinova published a more detailed explanation of her position in the living magazine, which boils down to the fact that the talented composer will break his way in the conditions of censorship both political and financial. This, however, did not reduce the passions, and most of the controversy participants remained at their own: some believe that Arshinov justifies the tragic events of 1948; Others believe that an employee of the Philharmonic was a victim of a skeleton, not trying to look for other reasons for what happened; Still others consider the victim of the reservation just to Olga Manulkin and require her opponent of apology. How did such consequences in the incomplete week have a record on a private page, which, by and large, is quite theoretical in nature?

Probably, the fact is that we not only did not part with the past-we are still in it. Events for more than half a century ago do not just rhyme with today - they are intertwined until complete inextricability. The Leningrad blockade, the situation around the “rain” and the arguments of Vladimir Medinsky about “one of the most“ soft ”leaders of the Stalinist era” Andrei Zhdanov - a figure that is exemplary for conversation both about the blockade and about 1948. A provocative entry on Facebook about “Shostakovich and his colossal take -off for all this”, followed by the possibility of state support of composers and polemic on this subject - almost a day a day with the publication of the orders of the Ministry of Culture to change the composition of expert councils, which introduced such odious figures as Elena Yampolskaya, Pavel Zvezhilo and Maxim Kantor. In this context, draw a parallel between the implementation of the thesis “Russia NOT Europe”, once again explained by Medinsky, and the struggle with “formalism” in 1948 is like attacking a neighbor on the corn and surprised why he yells.

“Yes, condemned. Yes, rudely performed, ”says the Minister of Culture about Zhdanov’s initiatives against Shostakovich, Akhmatova, Zoshchenko. - And the other would be sent to the camps in his place. Such discussions today need to be carefully approached. We must always try to understand the motivation of the solution ... and the context of the time. " It is hardly an employee of the Philharmonic named after Shostakovich Street to be in the company with Vladimir Medinsky, but she affirms in fact the same thing: “Yes, there were troubles, fear, struggle ... and other negatives. This is life. This was time ... but so far the whole people suffered at the best case in communal services and poverty, Shostakovich suffered differently, suffered as a composer, with the much greater comfort provided to him by his drivers ... that is, the Soviet government well understood who Shostakovich was. " She understood, but, not daring to destroy physically, destroyed morally in 1948, and earlier, in 1936, when Shostakovich was forced to trample the brilliant avant-garde, the author of the opera Nose.

That is why to discuss about 1948, “Shostakovich and his colossal take -off for all this” at least blasphemous; With the same success, we can talk about the rise of Boris Pasternak as a result of the foreign publication of Dr. Zhivago, leaving aside his imminent illness and death, or the take -off of academician Vavilov as a consequence of the initiatives of academician Lysenko. “If the state undertakes to systematically support at least 20 composers, of which five will be talented and one brilliant, and their works will receive a way to a wide listener (something that is practically none) is all a huge good,” Arshinova writes. It would be difficult to argue with this, but who will decide which of the composers to support? If we are talking about expert councils with the conventional Yampolskaya and Eater, it is better for the composers to be left without such support, and the music is not without the attention of the state. And in this sense, the repetition of “1948” is unlikely to threaten: academic music has long been not a matter of public importance, and excluding the opening of a new Mariinsky Theater building confirm the rule.

However, to the censorship of the political, while the music is almost not related, the dictatorship of money has now been added: after the festival of the symphonic orchestras of the world, you can cut financing to other festivals, orchestras, philharmonics, and opera theaters. This, however, will almost not affect the work of composers, the existence of which is almost completely ignored by the state. Should I regret it? If you recall 1948 and the close attention of the party to musical art, then not too much. But the very atmosphere of aggression is discontinued on top, when we are looking for a reason for demarcation, and not for unification, when we are ready to believe the charges of denunciation, when thinking in a public diary can become a reason for dismissal, demoralizes and resembles those very times. The wonderful book of Catherine Vlasova “1948 in Soviet music” is dedicated to them - it is not too late to re -read it.