Did you betray you? | Colta.ru

§1. Loyalty: humiliation and murder of another

Corporations and the editorial office declare their rights already at the interview. You have not yet been called the amount of salary, but they are already demanding fidelity: "Where is your labor?" “In our company”, “in our university”, “in our magazine” ... There are people who are not shy about talking on behalf of institutions, merging with them in the harmonious “we”. “We are not accepted”, “Our authors are always”, “We don’t do that.” “I am a professional” - “You are approaching us” - welcome aboard - welcome to a corporate bosom.

To be presented by professional or family status, to fully fit into the organization, editorial office, team, to be executive, to know his job, to keep him loyalty and not to allow failures (“this is not our format”, “we do not work like that”). Husband, father, member of the Hall of Glory, correspondent of such and such publication (“Of course, go through!”)-an obsessive desire to restore to what is called and recorded. Letters in the work book, in the passport, in the certificate of death, on the grave plate. When the authors of the Kommersant newspaper write to other editions, a solid sign is added to their surname: the Tavro belonging, which prevents them from getting lost in someone else's herd and wanders to other owners.

Another, inscribed in your name, almost ceases to be different: it is not so easy to betray it, replace it with another. And how can you wish it without substitution, betrayal and change (divorce and maiden surname)? After the official conclusion of marriage and branding passports, a crisis in a relationship occurs: the unsteady lover (exception is Milady Winter) is much more interesting.

Recognition No. 1: “We met for several years, our relations were cloudless. My friend had only one unsatisfied desire: she often dreamed out loud about our future wedding. We got married, but after the wedding something happened-she began to deteriorate more often, and soon, having pretty much drinking at a party, she began to publicly offend me, mocking my weaknesses and disadvantages that she had never talked about before. ”

Recognition No. 2: “Having entered the university, I fantasized with trepidation of the most boring versions of my fate: to engage in the Byzantine miniature of the Macedonian period, digging in dusty archives, comparing manuscripts, or creating a family, having gone through all the accompanying rituals ... of these idoral fantasies about lonely digging in the Visantian Manuscripts or ideal marriage was completely excluded by another - whether it be another Byzantine or love partner. Later, really getting to work in the museum, I ran there from the disappointments of my personal life. But at the same time, I was tormented by the feeling that this museum work was not related to art. ”

If the fidelity of the corporation helps to avoid problems in relations, then loyalty to the museum may be a way to avoid art-how-problems. But problems have the ability to return - in addition to your consciousness.

Recognition No. 3: “In my history of relations with institutions there was a turning point: when studying at the university, I lost a student ID five times in one semester, it was impossible to get without a lecture: the security in the Stalin High School of the main building of Moscow State University is inexorable. Neither before nor after such losses happened to me. Later I realized: these losses - an unconscious uprising against too specific inscription in a social order - made me admit my own desire: I do not want to study here. Soon I transferred to another faculty. ”

In this recognition, life is rebelled against fidelity to the “our” university. On the other hand, it turns out that serving the university is where life is fading away.

Recognition No. 4: “How can you take the supervisor not from the university with the living ... (here's the name of the famous manager of our department, who really died less than a year after my protection).”

In recognition No. 4, an indecent truth is found about the requirement of loyalty: loyalty is loyalty to the dead to another. Only the dead other can be reduced to the name and assigned. So behind the obsessive fidelity to the title (surname, patronymic, ...) is discovered by the desire to kill.

Recognition No. 5: "Thoughts about the death of my father occupied my mind from a very early age for a long period of time and very much suppressed me."

§2. Betrayal: Change of another

Having dispersed the Constituent Assembly in 1918, the Bolsheviks showed that they quite possess the art of betrayal, refusing to deal with what they consider dead. “The legal fetishism of the people's will of the revolution has always been inflicted heavy blows,” wrote Trotsky; “The acceleration of the Constituent Assembly by the Soviet government is a complete and open liquidation of formal democracy in the name of the revolutionary dictatorship,” said Lenin.

But the revolutionary betrayal of the idea of ​​the Constituent Assembly indirectly secured the monopoly of another fidelity - the fidelity of one party. This loyalty, gaining and suffering during the Civil War, played a cruel joke with the party and the state, laying the foundation for the Stalinist centralization of the authorities. During the large processes of 1937, the old party members devoted to the court were ready to sacrifice themselves to the organization: the Bolshevik pragmatism of 1917 came to self -denial.

Recognition No. 6: “We all turned into fierce counter -revolutionaries, into traitors of the socialist homeland, we turned into spies, terrorists, and restorers of capitalism. We went to betrayal, crime, treason. We turned into a rebel detachment, organized terrorist groups, engaged in wrecking, wanted to overturn the Soviet power of the proletariat. ”

The ethical collapse of the partisanship is described in the “blinding darkness” of Arthur Kestler (1940) : the self -negotiating becomes the last duty that the hero gives the party and revolution. The history of the Bolsheviks proves: betrayal is necessary for something else-but it is impossible to know why it is actually committed. Is it possible to betray a museum for art? Is it possible to betray art for the museum?

Recognition No. 7: "I betrayed a lover for the sake of a friend and a friend for the sake of a lover."

The art, which calls for good, works for solidarity: we are all against oppression / injustice / fascism / capitalism / sexism ... But some artists abandon solidarity, luring the audience and then sharply pulling away from it. “The artist must take power” - but he is anyone, but not “your candidate”.

Inside the capitalist ethics, the desire to create a trade union looks like the betrayal of the employer: after all, the employee must be grateful to the capitalist for the fact that, like the creator god , he “created” jobs or sponsored one or another project with his “hand giving”. But loyalty to the trade union - the structure that opposing the corporation - in turn, can become a new form of pathological loyalty, which will block the transition from the struggle for labor to the struggle for political rights. The problem of thread-unionism is the transition from solidarity within the team to the solidarity of the abstract-ethical.

Recognition No. 8: “I managed to graduate from the university only at the evening department-precisely because it suggested you some other role, and not just the role of the student. I had a difficult relationship with institutions. Working in them, I wanted to feel like a smuggler, stealthily pulling something there, as it seemed to me, foreign and provocative. On the socialist site - texts about psychoanalysis. On the liberal - about Marxism. The Center for Contemporary Art perpetily hierarchies is institutional criticism. ”

Recognition No. 9: “At the university, I chose the scientific director of a professor who was part-time a priest-it was a respected intelligent father with conservative liberal scientific interests. I did not want any other leader, but the only topic that I saw for myself was related to revolutionary radicalism and atheism in art. Our outwardly affected relations covered a terrible misunderstanding. In addition, I always felt that I was in an awkward position, forcing him to even just discuss this issue. But the professor personified the university for me with a capital letter and the very possibility of knowledge. However, I was able to start writing something only after our relations burst as a result of my awkward joke. By assisting him in the exam, I at the students called the examination tickets “this paper”, which caused him an attack of rage. It was all over between us. But from this moment, knowledge forever separated for me from the walls of the university and from the beard of my professor. ”

A hysterical trick is not only a impulse to freedom and independence. Behind hysteria is a desire for recognition - recognition of its exclusivity.

Recognition No. 8 (continuation): “I managed to finish not any kind of evening department, but the evening department of the university, which was covered with authority. My smuggling acts were simultaneously oath for fidelity-but each time it was loyalty to someone else: psychoanalysis in the face of Marxism, Marxism in the face of liberalism ... And, of course, these acts of smuggling were called to attract attention. Having caused a scandal at the university and, without thinking twice, bringing it to publicity, I am still looking for evidence with increased attention that this institution recognizes my existence. Recently, they told me that one teacher actively objected to my speech at the conference, because for her I am a traitor to the Academy. This news brought me satisfaction. Confessing this to this, I am making another act of exhibitionism, a camming out , striving to attract the eyes of another. ”

The betrayal of institutions, associated with “leaving nowhere”, often lead to career successes and the new political hegemony: the betrayal of parents puts the beginning of a new genus, the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly - the dictatorship of the party, the demarcation with the old institution - the growth of the new around the uninterrupted ones. Moscow Art Theater. Gorky is located no less profitable than the Moscow Art Theater. Chekhov.

Recognition No. 10: “As a young graduate student, I shared a common topic with my supervisor - the head of my department. At some point, it turned out that my work stepped far ahead, and my leader went to the director of the institute in order to discredit my achievements and prove that his development is the only thing in this area. At the public seminar at our institute, where his work was discussed, I suddenly realized that his calculations were contrary to the basic law of physics - which he stated aloud and loudly. They stuck at me. As a result of this scandal, I was forced to leave the institute and look for external leadership. My departure was the beginning of my successful scientific career. I went abroad, I was offered a laboratory at a famous university. Soon the anniversary of the institute in which I was a graduate student will be celebrated. I have one dream - to come to the celebrations and make a report there. ”

§3. Betrayal: proposal of impossible relationships

The shares of Alexander Brener of the 1990s did not give any chance to feel unity and solidarity-any other in them was originally devoted. That is why they sounded like a cry, addressed to another, which is not able to meet him satisfactory: all the reactions of power, even the most stringent, turned out to be insufficient and beat by, letting the artist dodge.

Recognition No. 11: “I often ended up in the police, but in most cases I was quickly released. Since the 90s were relatively liberal and I had an Israeli passport ... Then a balloon competition was held in Europe. The ball flew from Poland into the territory of Belarus. And the Belarusian artillery shot down him. Two athletes died. I went and bought bottles with ketchup. He wrote a leaflet against Belarus. He began to beat the glass. The embassy decided that this was almost a terrorist act. I was very much beaten. The process has begun. Then I just went to Sheremetyevo, sat on the plane and flew away. ”

In the “First Glove” rally (1995), the Brener in a boxing suit threw a silent Kremlin walls from the frontal place. Hysterical cry "Come out, vile coward!" He was personally addressed to Russian President Boris Yeltsin. The war in Chechnya, which Media was represented as an impersonal need for “restoration of constitutional legality and law and order”, was deliberately naively saw by the Bren as a sum of decisions, actions and relations of specific people.

Contemporary art is a practice engaged in almost exclusively issues of recognition. Hesitating between institutional inscription and rare attempts to jump over it (that is, jump over yourself), it is sometimes able to recall just those relationships that are thought as impossible, naive and absurd. Criticism is also capable of this.

In hysteria there is more truth than in an obsessive attempt to merge with your own title. She seeks to see another in the institution of another, and not just status, relationships, and not just a name. Hysteria constantly appeals to relationships where they are forgotten - resorting to this to an obscene form, which in institutions is often called "tolerate the CRU from the hut." This is the emancipating power of hysteria, if you understand the word "emancipation" strictly, as the return of a person to himself - that is, a return to relations with another.

Recognition No. 12: “My dismissal was directly related to personal relations outside of work. The desire to quit from the Center for Contemporary Art broke out when at work in connection with a certain scandal in social networks a claim was made to me: “Alien people are closer to you than our museum!” The “strangers” were understood in this case my close friends. ”

Those who unequivocally condemn the betrayal of institutions or aggressive attacks against sponsors do not see that this obscene behavior may be a call for relationships and at the same time evidence of their impossibility - the impossibility of entering into other relations with the oligarch than those that are regulated by the shameful commandment of social inequality: “You can’t bite the hand of the giving” (gloomy compensation for this prohibition - an official novel). But the matter is not only in the oligarchs - the whole society is permeated with fear to violate Status quo . An attempt to bite is the only way to return the likeness of life to the relationship.

Recognition No. 13: “I have repeatedly dreamed of dreams about hard sex with their bosses and bosses, but always in the situation of working conflicts. I have never started any real sexual connections at work. ”

Recognition No. 14: “Literally the day after we were given a grant for a long study of the political measurement in art, I went on a trip. I am always lazy to lay it on my train, and this time my young man helped me with the bed. I fell asleep under the knock of the wheels and saw a dream, I propose to cover the bed on the upper shelf of the reserved seat director of the fund, which gave us a grant, is a powerful and secular lady. Pulling a sheet on the mattress in a dream, I felt that I was doing a certain duty, and at the same time I felt burning shame from my own servility. ”