The search program failed

There is a walking wisdom that there are problems with philosophy in Russia. Here is the prize to them. Alexander Pyatigorsky for the best “philosophical composition” this year was not handed to anyone. Presumably, with philosophy in the Fatherland, really something is wrong. I worked in the Pyatigorsky Expert Council, and this experience convinced me that Russia really has serious problems, but only they have no relation to philosophy. I will call them negligence, contempt for institutions and a craving for warm pile.

Negligence usually manifest in relation to something imposed, while the paradox of this award was that negligently did its own business. Here are people who are united by love for the philosopher Pyatigorsk. They have a million, and they want to spend it on “supporting interest in philosophizing outside the professional philosophical community” through an intellectual prose prize (I quote the “Property Regulation” ). Good deed. It remains to show zeal and realize the plan. But for some reason it is realized crookedly.

The key procedure of the bonus-the preparation of a short-list (3 books from 39 nominated)-instead of the planned seven philosophers, three were engaged in three (moreover not known to anyone; Valery Anashvili could not take part in the work). The top three books by them were read by eight people , in cultural circles of very famous. The imbalance is obvious immediately: three set the scope for eight. It is hard to believe that in Russia it was impossible to find seven people with a diploma of the Faculty of Philosophy, ready to read a few books for little money. These people simply did not look for. The short list of three books is too narrow as a compromise field, which should come to eight people, not united, unlike experts, one profession. Why was it initially not expanding it?

This should be thought about in advance, but why think, if “we are looking”, as the organizers say. The “Search” was so intense that all organizing sections were outsourcing to the organizers of the “Big Book”. Actually, negligence is a willingness to outsource your own business and put the process to a gear. Experts turned out to be extremely honest outsourcers and themselves came up with a formal framework for their work. And they could just poke a finger at familiar names - no one was interested in our decision -making mechanism.

In the end, negligence and created a situation in which the premium million went just a familiar name - for ten years now as the deceased Vladimir Bibikhin. But in order for this to happen, it was required, in addition, a fantastic contempt for rules and someone else's work. And I do not even mean the work of experts, but the work of the authors of books that fell into a short list. The jury, unable to agree on the winner, as if to all three deuces. I quote the chairman of the jury Oleg Genisaret: “There are no three works in a short list of three works that would certainly be responsible for the formula of the prize, namely: that it is issued for a philosophical composition in order to maintain interest in modern philosophy, in the modern form of philosophizing, in order to, so that it, this philosophizing, has become a feature of such a life style of modern man.” If you translate this from a foggy language into Russian, then the proposal will turn out to be much shorter: experts are idiots, and finalists are bad writers. This is a sad truth: by the spring of 2014, the Russian culture of a good “philosophical composition” did not give rise to. But there were times. Take at least Bibikhin.

But the truth is, in fact, it is that with this attitude to their own institutions, culture will never be worthy and will not give rise to. After all, what is a prize? This is not only a holiday of receiving an unplanned income by one person. The prize, if according to the mind, is an institution that works for the future. Creating it, the founder tells the city and the world that he is ready to raise something. In our case, intellectual prose. 49 nominators , people professionally engaged in art, offer their understanding of this very intellectual prose. Unprofitable, but nevertheless, nevertheless, the expert council answers them with its understanding. The jury in this tight framework should formulate its own.

Further like this: the public takes note that there is an opinion - it is difficult, according to the rules specially invented for this, the formed opinion that the writer X writes good intellectual prose. The audience gets acquainted with the work of writer X , agrees or does not agree with the jury assessment, embarks on disputes and discussion, remains dissatisfied, is waiting for the next prize.

You can’t say better Bibikhin better. The next year we will reward Averintsev.

The Institute initiates and structures activities around itself. He works with what is, and guarantees that it will continue. The meaning of the institute is to work properly, that is, according to the rules. The activity supported by him may be valuable, or maybe not very, but if it is not there, then there will be nothing.

In this case, the award began with a statement that there is no intellectual prose. President of the Pyatigorsky Foundation Efim Ostrovsky called the Prize "Search Program". But you can’t look for what is not. It is pointless to wait until something grows out of nothing. You can find satisfactory only digging in the existing one. From the cash, choose a decent one.

Dissing his hands in the face of nothing, the institute as such committed suicide. In his absence of intellectual prose, only what was produced by others that once existed institutions can be considered. That is, Leo Tolstoy and Vladimir Bibikhin. Read the classics, dear Russian public. And do not write anything, dear authors. You can’t say better Bibikhin better. The next year we will reward Averintsev. So the descendant of Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov is actively involved in the current cultural dead man. Why not support.

The work of the jury of this year consisted of a consistent violation of the rules. The chairman announced the project of the jury decision a minute after the declaration of the short list -even before the jury itself gathered. Having gathered, it began to resist its chairman and simply refused to fulfill its function, that is, make a decision. “Giving preference to one novel, we seem to subscribe to what philosophy in literature is,” said Oleg Aronon. Well, yes, you are for that and the jury to determine for the current year, what is philosophy in literature. The most beautiful statement belongs to Ksenia Golubovich: she called the jury inability to compromise the act of “personal honesty”. Do not argue. Capitulated honestly.

Although not quite. The familiar name still received a million. It should be made a reservation that it is very good that it received it. The widow of the remarkable philosopher Vladimir Bibikhin Olga Lebedeva is engaged in the publication of his labors, and the money, of course, in this work will be great for her. It is bad that such an activity should be financed through grants and charity, and not through prizes for modern intellectual prose.

The reason for the transformation of the bonus into an act of charity was the undertakeable jury's craving for warm pile. Vladimir Bibikhin was a close friend of Olga Sedakova. She is the author of the preface to the book, which herself, as a participant in the jury, issued a bonus (for the sake of decency reformatted in a special prize). Prior to this, Oleg Genisaretsky, commenting on the short list, named two names that, to his displeasure, did not get there, namely Vladimir Bibikhin and Vladimir Krichevsky, his friends. Unfortunately, this is not the desire to financially help these very friends (which is humanly clear), but a deep conviction that only a person belonging to a certain circle can write something worthwhile. This “we” overlifts, ages, grows up, degrades, but continues to stay together. Together warmer. “What a pity that composer Martynov did not get into the short list,” Olga Sedakova lamented. Cultural ties, built not on personal contacts, but on formal ones, are not supported and die. Development is replaced by self -preservation. After us - at least a flood. As Pyatigorsky said somewhere, a liberal, that is, a separate, independent person, is easier to find in the yurt of the Mongols than in Moscow.

But God is with her, with the prize to them. Pyatigorsky. In the end, there are few undertakings that end, so really without starting. More importantly, the problems that the prize faced are, it seems, of an all -Russian character. Ksenia Golubovich, explaining the decision of the jury, said : "Many of us knew Alexander Pyatigorsky, met him, and, I think, his spirit soared above us." I don’t know what kind of spirit he soared over the jury, but on the network, for example, the spirit of Pyatigorsky has been soaring in the form of this quote for many years: “ (quietly, thoughtfully) the main feature of Russia is not theft, not corruption, not stupidity, not anger ... (turning on a barely audible mumble) not rudeness, not vanity, not ignorance. The main feature of Russia (suddenly switches to a scream) is x ** nya! Any x ** nya !!! "

It is only necessary to add that this very x ** nya is not an essential characteristic of Russia or a mysterious element that is certainly included in everything Russian. X ** nya is the result of our own activities. The result of negligence, contempt for institutions with their rules and craving for warm pile.