Biennale, Biennale and Biennale again

So, we know the names of the artists who will be shown in the Russian pavilion at the next Venetian Biennale (Grisha Bruskin, Sasha Pirogova, the Recycle group and composer Dmitry Kurlandsky who joined them). We were announced that Semyon Mikhailovsky himself was the commissar and the curator, that he was returning us to the state of the early 1990s, if not earlier. We were informed about the mysterious suppetors. In addition, we now know the name of the curator of the coming Moscow Biennale - Yuko Khasegava. And, finally, the topics of the projects were announced in Venice, that in Moscow - respectively Theatrum Orbis Terrarum and “Sweeter Forests”. But we decisively do not understand anything. Roman Minaev also did not understand what happened, but tried to figure it out.

As in the case of a recently declared project for the Russian pavilion in Venice, and with the future Moscow Biennale, we witnessed the consequences of the nationalization of contemporary art in accordance with the actual cultural policy aimed at the effective “confrontation between external and internal challenges” at a difficult time for the country. Cultural policy is now part of the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation, which means that its subject poses a potential threat of loosening and swinging, which can only be prevented by control in this area. Against the backdrop of the merger of the GCC with Rosiso, a demonstration of “the actual cut of modern Russian art, from painting to video art” within the walls of the Museum of modern history of Russia makes us think about the irreversibility of this process. So strongly “everything that we have” came together only at fairs at the Central House of Sciences, if we talk about aesthetics. In ideological terms, the most striking example of the Exhibition “Actual Russia” in his second phase “Reboot” was the project of the representative of the national liberation movement of Maria Katasonova with the art group “White Star”, which presented a picturesque triptych with the imaginary stronghold of the leaders of the right forces (Putin, Le Pen, Trump), which indicates the political dreams of the organizers and once again It proves that censorship in Russia really is not.

The delayed statement by the commissar of the Russian pavilion at the Venice Biennale about the composition of artists raised primarily the questions "was the curator?" And "Did not the commissar appoint himself to this position?" The main criteria for choosing artists were "convincing creative beginning and human compatibility." Wonderful qualities, especially when you consider that they, to put it mildly, do not reflect anything in a professional sense. Yes, additional curators (in particular, the scandalously known Sylvia Burini ), with whom the artists themselves wished, were declared later, but this did not clarify the situation: “Who officially occupies the position of curator of the pavilion?” And "does it exist at all?" These questions should not be considered in an analogy with other national pavilions. Each country is free to dispose of its property in its own way and establish its own rules of the game.

Everyone has already been accustomed over the past few years to transparency in cultural policy.

The Russian art community proudly and trepidation observes the state of domestic art, the best examples of which every two years represent the country at the most important international exhibition. Everyone has already been accustomed over the past few years to transparency in cultural policy . Two years ago, the Ministry of Culture even posted on social networks a series of photographs displaying the act of approval by the Minister of the Biennal Project . For what? And then, in order for the Russians to know that in our contemporary art everything is decided by honor and conscience. And representatives of the cultural establishment themselves use any suitable opportunity to remind us of the purity of their thoughts. So, for example, the co -owner of the Triumph Gallery Dmitry Khankin at the first official briefing on the reorganization of the Moscow Biennale, said that “the main, fundamental principle of new management: to be absolutely transparent, absolutely predictable, completely not cell, but worldly!” I personally sincerely believe that 13 percent expelled from my modest salary in favor of the state go to culture, and therefore the unexpected failure of the program, where such an important detail of a complex mechanism as the curator of the exhibition project disappears, raises my questions, and the reluctance of the official side to give them a deep indignation.

Semen Ilyich Mikhailovsky is a man, of course, talented. This is evidenced by the facts. He simultaneously occupies the posts of the rector of the Repin Academy of Arts in St. Petersburg (the most conservative art university of the country), the head of the newly formed expert council of the Moscow Biennale, the commissar of the Russian pavilion in two Biennale in Venice (architectural and contemporary art) and now the still self-executed main curator-exposure. I remembered the case of how several years ago at the exhibition of graduates of art schools at the Academic Lyceum, Semyon Ilyich pointed me to a picturesque canvas with the image of a shepherdess against the backdrop of the starry sky, made in a strict academic manner, and added that this work is much better than the work of the Surikovites at the same exhibition. It should be noted that shortly before this, at a conference on the problems of education, Semyon Ilyich first refuted the thesis of my report on the division of art into modern and incompetent, but nevertheless refused to introduce additional discipline for modern art in the Academy of Arts as unnecessary.

We should not all the time correspond to some trends there, we have our own path.

The news that Semyon Ilyich became twice the commissar of the Russian pavilion was the topic of my private conversation with a friend, who at one time had an attitude to the organization of the Venetian Biennale. We reasoned, presenting Mikhailovsky in the Russian pavilion the actual cut of Russian academic painting or will still give in to favorable terms. In one we were in solidarity: the academic project serves him the most powerful argument, and a protracted decision to choose a curator and artists indicates long -term negotiations with an interested party. Last year, Semen Ilyich appointed the chief architect of Moscow Sergey Kuznetsov at the architectural Biennal, which showed the project on the reconstruction of VDNH . The problems of the revival of the Stalin Empire, one must understand, does not really occupy the international architectural community. It is too puzzled by a solution to the pressing problems of social housing. But we should not all the time correspond to some trends there, we have our own path.

Thus, relying on past experience, it could be assumed that Semyon Ilyich would not bluff and, if necessary, does everything to show in the Russian pavilion such an art, an expert on which he, in fact, is, is incompetent. Later, when they finally announced the composition of the artists who would represent Russia in Venice, it turned out that three of the four were working with the Triumph gallery, whose co -owner Dmitry Khankin is simultaneously the co -founder of the Moscow Biennale of Modern Art, that is, a colleague of Semyon Ilyich on another project. It is necessary to try hard so as not to see in this seemingly random coincidence a stronghold of the interests of capital and ideology. No, the interest of the commercial structure, of course, lies exclusively in the field of sales of the work of those very artists. Close cooperation with the state opens up new prospects through art in the sky -high distances. Like in a fairy tale about the golden key, where the magic door was behind the old picture.

Of course, you can recall a lot of criticism of former functionaries who left their posts for various reasons. Often it had to hear the most bold accusations against them, from intellectual failure to the betrayal of high ideals of art with an indispensable condition for personal material benefit. The main conflict, which did not find permission for a long time, was that, although contemporary art appeared as a symbol of modern Russian society with the potential of bait to attract foreign investment in the country, but often manifested itself as an unconscious thing for power. If even the most striking actions of artistic protest with a long international echo were not initiated with the knowledge of official art institutions, they found, at least, faithful apologists, which caused bewilderment in the public. For advice from TV screens, in such cases, honored artists were addressed, for which, at best, contemporary art is nothing more than profanity.

The appointed curator of the Moscow Biennale Yuko Hasegawa will undoubtedly justify hopes assigned to it - at least partially, since the first -announced acceptance for participation in the main project of Biennale implies a moderation, the principle of which is known only to the Biennal Council. There was no doubt that the long -awaited era has come, about which academic painters, sculptors and architects rejected hitherto rejected by self -proclaimed artists and chiefs of the so -called contemporary art - all those who were not allowed to participate in artistic life due to the inconsistency of concepts, understandable and accessible only by the small number of experts, which still in Soviet times carried the idea of ​​contemporary art. as a means of communication with the outside world. Now, the tone is set by people considering contemporary art as a potential segment of the future antique market. The current situation first smooths out the contradictions and equates the works of different in nature in one context, and later by modern art with the light hand of Semyon Ilyich and his team will become everything that has long ceased to be.

What does this mean for art? First of all, the fact that it has long lost the possibility of a free critical utterance and now appears as a precious stone in the crown of the current state policy, best of all, characteristic of the times of political intrigues and cold wars with attributes in the form of warlike eagles, gold stars and tank caterpillars.

Knowing the plight of artists, it is difficult to imagine the effectiveness of calls for a boycott or indifference in artistic life: the system is too confused. Everyone must decide for himself whether he or she wants to distance himself from what is happening, promote his line or work undercover. In this situation, I see only one way out: discuss and troll, troll, troll!