Aesthetics of the ruin

Alexander Genis: He began in America A wave of protests against racial discrimination bypassed the whole world and caused the most contradictory reaction. Especially in the Russian sector of the Internet, where this summer you can read a lot of outlandish. For example, one of our listeners from Tver found a way out: to make African Americans happy, having bought a ticket to Africa to everyone. It seems to me that such tips are given by those who imagine the problem based on Giovanoli’s novel “Spartak”, which we all read in childhood.

It’s really not clear that you look at other people's customs from the side and you can’t, say, understand that it is not humiliation to bow one knee, but part of the ritual of sympathy, the same as, say, remove the hat with the dead man.

The same applies to the paintings that we observe in America. It is one thing-plywood shields on the windows, from which, fortunately, New York shops were released, and another five schoolgirls who write the names of African American people who died or injured from a police officer on arrest on the embankment of our town. And so with everything. For example, a hotly discussed and all the frightening topic of “abolition of the police” in practice means only the transfer of some functions, such as caring for the homeless, to social services.

Actually, it is understandable. The more difficult the situation is, the more difficult it is to figure it out. Especially in the most painful - racial - a problem that is considered the original sin of America. Of course, the country has far advanced in redeeming slavery. Few generation back, few would have believed that the Americans, and above all, white voters, will twice choose a black president for themselves. In part, these are the fruits of previous battles for civil rights of minorities shaking the country in the 1960s. The fact that this struggle was not in vain says statistics. In 1968, only 54% of black youth black received a certificate of graduation. Today there are 94%. A total of 9% of African Americans finished college then and 23% - now. This means that the gap in the level and lifestyle between Belaya and Black America is constantly reduced. But this does not mean that he disappeared. It is easy to judge this by setting a mental experiment. Many of our compatriots in America believe that African Americans get too many benefits from the authorities. The question is: someone would agree to change places with them? It is unlikely. The fact is that it is still difficult for a black American to get to a good school, get out of the ghetto, break out of the criminogenic environment, and simply earn as much as white, which on average get twice as much.

In general, all these factors are associated with the so -called “systemic racism”, only one sign of which was the crisis of the police service, which the protests began. Now they have grown into a challenge to the existing order of things. One of these challenges - violent and painful - leads to the destruction of monuments in the squares of American cities. Some see in this the restoration of the right historical justice, others-the destruction of the history itself, the third-part of the permanent process of the revision of history, which does not justify anything, but helps to understand something.

We are talking about this with a cultural scientist and musicologist Solomon Volkov in today's program.

Solomon, I would like to start our conversations with a purely personal note. Tell me, now, when in New York many monuments in question, which one is sorry for you, what is your favorite monument in New York?

Solomon Volkov: You know, I do not have a favorite monument of one that would fully satisfy me from a purely aesthetic point of view. But one monument, which is in question, as you noticed, is near me, very close, literally five minutes walk-this is a monument to theodor Roosevelt, to the president from 1901 to 1909. They put him in 1940 in front of the Museum of Natural History, a favorite place for New York children. I was there too a couple of times, I looked at dinosaurs, other rarities.

As for the monument, then, in my opinion, even for 1940 it was already somewhat outdated, it is very reminiscent of some Italian horse monuments to the condotics. Although, as they say, Theodore Roosevelt loved riding. The bottom line is that for many years I have heard about the debate around this monument. He does not just portray Roosevelt on a horse, but depicts him on a horse, next to which the African American goes on one side, and on the other side of the Indian. Indeed, claims to this image are that the White President is on the horse, and representatives of minorities in the United States are, as it were, subject to him, are subordinate to him. This has been caused for a long time, as I said, dissatisfaction, but it did not come to the point of removing this monument, because it should have been a joint decision of the board of directors of the museum and the city authorities to which this land and the premises of the museum belonged.

Alexander Genis: Solomon, you called my favorite monument, so you got it. And it is not for nothing that this is an equestrian monument: Roosevelt was an excellent rider. The sculptor James Fraser depicted the president and traveler, accompanied by an Indian and African, in order to show, according to the author, “Roosevelt’s friendliness to all races”, but this aspect of sculpture eludes the attention of our contemporaries. The monument is really old-fashioned, but this has its own charm-it is suitable for West Said, where many old-old buildings are preserved, including the wonderful building of the museum itself.

The point is that Theodore Roosevelt is my favorite president. He was a man so versatile that he can be loved for a variety of things. For example, he was a real cowboy. I really like that when he was a cowboy, he always had a chest, which he locked on the castle, because there was the "Iliad" Homer in the original, and he did not want other cowboys to know how he loves ancient Greek literature, this could prevent his reputation as a desperate bully, a participant in numerous duel. Theodor Roosevelt is my favorite also because he has preserved America for us. National parks are his merit. You know, there is Parthenon in Europe, and in America Parfenon is national parks. There are also seven wonders of the world in the new light, but they are all natural, and non -competitive. And all this is largely thanks to theodor Roosevelt, who helped to preserve the Wild West untouched.

Therefore, to erect a monument to Roosevelt in front of the museum, the half of the collection of which he collected is, of course, correctly, and it is wrong to remove it. But after all, the plan of our conversation today is to put the ongoing war with monuments in the cultural and historical context, which is determined by the permanent revision of history. But this is not news, this is not what happened today on the streets of New York and other large cities, but what always happens in one form or another. Isn't it, Solomon?

Solomon Volkov: My point of view on what is happening now, and what happened in all those years that we live with you in the United States and reflect on this topic (I will tell you frankly, in my Soviet life I didn’t think especially on these topics, but here they are always relevant) is the topic of culture mutation , if you like. My belief that you know is that culture does not disappear, culture cannot disappear, it only transforms. And the process of transformation of culture is permanent. And also permanently discontent, and even the horror of carriers and participants of the previous stage of culture. That is, when people suddenly face the fact that the place of their culture is reduced, and some new culture, unknown to them comes to this place, they feel it as hostile, they begin to wring their hands and say that all culture ends. This is not so, there will always be some culture. I recall the remark of our friend Petit Weil about how he, to his son, licking on him, said that which "Beatles" are wonderful. The son replied to him that he did not give a damn about the Beatles, but the Kiss group is yes. And the group "Kiss" Petya Weil could no longer accept. This was such a small illustration of how difficult it is to move from some cultural rails to others.

Alexander Genis: Exactly the same thing happens to me, it also seems to me that the Beatles is the top of culture, and, say, I can’t accept rap. But the fact is that the monuments of the former culture are destroyed, and it is not clear what will happen in their place while they are simply destroyed. I think: in America there are several hundred monuments to confederates in America, they are trying to remove them or have already been removed. This can still be understood, because in essence these are monuments to traitors. From the point of view of official historical thought, southerners are rebels who unleashed the civil war.

This reminds me of Spain, where General Franco was also a rebel. For many years, the memory of Franco suffered, but now it is being removed from the city topography. In Spain, today's memory of Franco is trying to erase, and this can be accepted. But there are things that are difficult to understand. For example, Cervantes, who was filled with scarlet paint in San Francisco. Cervantes himself was a slave, he was kept in slavery in North Africa. How did he interfere with anyone? It seems to me that all these monuments are symbols or idols of Western civilization, which left many on the sidelines. Ethnic minorities, racial minorities were on the side of the column road of civilization. Now the process is taking place when the roadside tortures to take revenge. And it’s completely incomprehensible to me what will come to these prayed places. True, we have a hint: it is with Russian experience that all this is easier to understand than many others. We know about the war with monuments in the post-Soviet era.

Solomon Volkov: I completely agree with you. I just want to notice in connection with the question of monuments as such. Let's see who is most often if you push the question of the figures of the culture itself aside, which you mentioned, say, Cervantes, who is most often awarded the monuments? These are almost always commanders, famous travelers. But what is a commander? This is a man who sent his people to the death of his people and destroyed the army, and sometimes the peaceful population of the opposite country. Is it necessary to demolish all the monuments to Napoleon on the grounds that on his conscience hundreds of thousands of dead people on both sides? On the grounds that he came to Moscow, and Moscow burned down. (The debate is still going on, whether the French set fire to it or were these fires of the retreating Russians.) Inevitably a commander is a person whose hands are blood, if not genuine, then figurative. What to do about it is not entirely clear.

Moreover, even when we begin to deal with cultural figures, apply today's criteria to them, then many problems arise. For example, such an unconditional cultural hero as Pushkin deserves monuments? Of course, we say. By the way, among the monuments to Pushkin, just the guardian Pushkin, and in particular, I must say, a monument to Pushkin in St. Petersburg, Anikushin’s work, which I consider the best, most outstanding monument in general of the Soviet era, this is a brilliant monument, at the level of world masterpieces.

But Pushkin was from the point of view of today's morality as a slave owner, he had serfs. Does this mean that the monument to Pushkin should be eliminated? I have no unequivocal answer to this, because the criteria, as I said, are changing all the time. This is a natural process, although painful for those who see their cultural territory, compressed, like shagren skin, but, obviously, inevitable.

Returning to the same monument to Roosevelt. By the way, I remind you that for Russia, the figure of Theodore Roosevelt is also especially significant because Roosevelt was the first Nobel laureate of the world award. He received the Nobel Prize of the World in 1906 by nothing more than to conclude peace between Russia and Japan. So it is directly related to Russian history too. At the moment, the question has been practically resolved that he needs to be eliminated. But the Roosevelt family, Roosevelt's descendants also agreed with this. And they even agree that there cannot be such a monument to their famous ancestor. This indicates the most serious shifts in the mentality of the modern American public.

Alexander Genis: One of your words follows: each time this is a separate case, it should be considered in the context of today's events. You can agree with this. But there are cases of indisputable. See: Pushkin was thrown off the steamer of our time - it was already, it did not lead to anything, Pushkin remained in its place, and the monuments were standing for him. But there are monuments that have disappeared, and I am happy that they have disappeared. For example, a monument to Dzerzhinsky. You know, this was one of the happiest days in my life when it was demolished. Thousands of monuments to Lenin, the so -called Leninopad, which occurred in Ukraine and in many countries of the post -Soviet space, in Latvia, for example, there were no monuments to Lenin. I do not regret in any way, recalling Voinovich's words. When he was asked: “Do you think this is vandalism?”, He said: “Vandalism was to erect these monuments.” And, it seems to me, it is difficult to argue with this.

Now, the portrait of Stalin appeared in the new Orthodox Church. This is vandalism - how to hang a portrait of Hitler in today's Reichstag. Both that, and another, in my opinion, is completely impossible and unacceptable. But the story, as you say, is changing all the time, Stalin, who could not appear, say, in the 1990s, in 2020 is perceived as a very possible object of worship, which, in my opinion, was impossible 30 years ago.

Solomon, from here an interesting question arises: what to do with demolished monuments? What should be their fate?

Monument to Lenin in Riga

Solomon Volkov: Again, I wanted to say regarding the monuments of Stalin, I completely agree with you here. Fortunately, the Stalinist repressions have passed my family. My ancestors died, grandfather, grandmother from one and the other side, in the Riga ghetto by the hands of Nazi invaders and those who then served them in Latvia. But if, suppose, someone in my family, one of my ancestors would be repressed in the Stalin years, during the years of great terror, and I would have been forced to walk either along Stalin Street, or past the monument to Stalin, then of course, everything in me would have blazed indignation. Understanding the emotions of these people, I absolutely welcome the demolition of monuments to Stalin. The same relative to the monuments to Lenin. Let me remind you of the most memorable for us, like Riga, Monument to Lenin on Lenin Street in front of the Independence Monument, a monument to Latvia Freedom. Riga Lenin had a rather average monument in its aesthetic qualities. From the fact that he was removed from there, the harmony of this place did not suffer. On the contrary, the Independence Monument, the Latvian Independence Monument shone with new colors.

Alexander Genis: And yet what to do with demolished monuments?

Solomon Volkov: I think that in this sense the experience of the Soviet Union turned out to be useful. There, numerous monuments to Stalin took off around the city, fenced this place-it turned out a museum of what was mistakenly worshiped at such and such a time. Accordingly, this can be considered as a museum, and museums can be with a positive program, glorifying something, but can also be, as you know, now museums dedicated to the Gulag or some other tragic moments in history. They can have a protest content. It seems to me that when you see several dozen monuments to Stalin and Lenin fenced, this causes the right emotions. It seems to me that this is a very good idea.

Alexander Genis: I agree that it is the museum of the monuments that are the most safe, the museum is the territory where it is not living, but a dead past. And in this regard, it becomes safer than even a destroyed monument. By the way, the same Roosevelt from which we started our conversation will apparently be exhibited without a pedestal inside the museum. And right: it is best to keep it in the museum.

You know, Solomon, when another life began after 1991, I printed an article in the then main liberal organ "Light" that it was time to collect all the artifacts of Soviet life and arrange a sort of memorial "village of Soviet life". I even offered a place - VDNH. It seems to me that it would be very slow to do it then, now it’s too late, but 30 years ago, it would be quite appropriate, as it seems to me.

Maybe something similar should happen in history constantly when there is a revision of the past. And from it there are ruins that are of great importance. After all, the aesthetics of the ruins are an important cultural topic in itself. Remember, at Brodsky: "We look around, we see only the ruins."

Solomon Volkov: Yes, of course. The aesthetics of the ruins is that aspect of our topic that needs to be kept in mind. For the first time that the ruins have some kind of independent aesthetic value were paid attention to the humanists of the Renaissance. For them, it was obvious to roll over the contemporary ruins inherited from ancient Rome, with antiquity. They saw in the worship of the ruins the construction of antiquity to the pedestal. And this, of course, was a historical merit. Они впервые обратили внимание на значимость руин и для эстетики, и для истории, и для философии.

Александр Генис: Интересно, что эстетику руин понимают и в Нью-Йорке. Здесь, например, есть памятник Ленину, который купили в 1990-е годы в бывшем Советском Союзе, привезли в Нью-Йорк и поставили на один высокий дом в Сохо, в артистическом районе Нью-Йорка. Там Ленин служит как раз руиной Советского Союза, не в России, а здесь, в Нью-Йорке. И по-моему, это вполне уместная ироническая сноска к истории.

Но важно еще сказать, что все эти проблемы связаны с скульптурами. Что такое памятник? Это в первую очередь скульптура, а скульптура – это кумир, первобытный бог. У меня есть товарищ, Джеф Блюмис, замечательный скульптор, который по этому поводу сказал: “Мы занимаемся самым древним магическим ремеслом: создаем идолов, кумиров. Потому что каждый памятник – это немножко бог, именно поэтому с ним можно воевать”.

Почему, собственно говоря, памятники отвечают за нашу историю? Да потому что они не совсем мертвы – они воодушевлены тем, что мы в них вкладываем. Именно поэтому такая важная часть исторического процесса – война с предыдущими кумирами, она шла всегда. Сейчас нам кажется, что это производит ужасное впечатление, вандализма, но ведь он был всегда, как вы правильно сказали, ревизия история перманентна. В Древнем Риме каждый император, свергая предыдущего, уничтожал его изображения. Потом борьбой с языческими памятниками занялись христиане. Это было, это есть и это будет – с этим нужно как-то жить. А как с этим жить, не очень понятно, потому что, конечно, тут и огорчений хватает, и споров, и очень много болезненных эмоций.

(Music)

Александр Генис: Соломон, но ведь не только памятники – жертвы ревизии истории. Если мы обратимся к истории музыки, то найдем и тут достаточно примеров.

Соломон Волков: Да, конечно, причем их можно найти, не удаляясь особенно в сторону. Тут возникают очень интересные историко-эстетические парадоксы. Один из них связан с именами двух важнейших русских композиторов — Глинки и Чайковского. Мы знаем, что Глинка в 1836 году показал в Большом театре свою новую оперу "Жизнь за царя", в которой музыкально иллюстрировалась история спасения 16-летнего Михаила Романова в 1613 году таким легендарным (некоторые считают эту фигуру мифической) костромским крестьянином Иваном Сусаниным. Отряд поляков хотели этого мальчика Романова уничтожить, а Сусанин завел их в леса, где все погибли. Опера стала визитной карточкой династии Романовых, ею традиционно открывался сезон в императорских театрах до революции. Но когда произошла революция, то опера исчезла.

Вспоминают об анекдотической попытке поставить ее, где Сусанин был председателем сельсовета, и пели там "Славься, славься, советский строй" в конце. Эта подделка быстро исчезла. А в 1939 году уже была предпринята серьезная ревизия монархической оперы Глинки. Сергей Городецкий, замечательный поэт и специалист по части либретто, написал совершенно новый текст. Ему пришла в голову грандиозная идея, опирающаяся на новейшие исследования того времени. Некий крестьянин уже в 1612, а не в 1613 году, большая разница, это эпоха Великой смуты, завел польский отряд, который двигался на Москву, не уничтожать юного царя, а захватить Москву, он завел поляков в леса, где все погибли. Этого безымянного крестьянина нарекли Иваном Сусаниным. Таким образом и монархический подтекст, и оригинальный текст исчезли. Заключительный хор "Славься", который прославлял у Глинки царя, – “Славься, славься, наш русский царь", был заменен на "Славься, славься ты, Русь моя, славься ты, русская наша земля".

Это был 1939 год, с тех пор опера, которую переименовали в "Ивана Сусанина", так и исполнялась, пока не пришла перестройка. И в 1988 году вернули "Жизнь за царя", с тех пор она опять открывает сезон в Большом театре, идет там под названием "Иван Сусанин", но с прежним монархистским либретто и с прежним сугубо монархическим текстом барона Розена.

Александр Генис: Это говорит о том, что история не только все время меняется, но она еще и повторяется, она способна возвращаться на свои круги.

Соломон Волков: В том-то и дело, и это тоже один из парадоксов истории.

Что же касается Чайковского, то он с этим связан следующим образом: он сочинил Торжественную увертюру 1812 год, премьера была осуществлена в 1882-м. Ему заказали этот опус к 25-летию коронации Александра II. Чайковский написал своему издателю, что с крайним отвращением берется за сочинение этой музыки потому, что предполагаемый герой для него антипатичное лицо. Но тут произошла трагедия: Александр II был убит, и симпатии Чайковского резко прибавились, он даже вступил в знаменитую Священную дружину, о чем сейчас не любят вспоминать. Кончалось это его сочинение гимном "Боже, царя храни". Конечно же, в советское время это исполнять было невозможно. Один из моих любимых музыкальных деятелей советской эпохи Виссарион Яковлевич Шебалин сделал в 1952 году новую редакцию этой увертюры и заменил "Боже, царя храни" – очень искусно, он был мастером такого рода вещей – на глинкинское "Славься". С тех пор на протяжение всего советского периода Торжественная увертюра Чайковского исполнялась в редакции Шебалина. Но теперь возвращена первоначальная версия. По миру, конечно же, эта увертюра всегда так и исполнялась – с "Боже, царя храни", в этом качестве она стала одним из самых популярных музыкальных опусов здесь, в Соединенных Штатах Америки.

В Вест-Пойнте исполняют Увертюру Чайковского 4 июля

Александр Генис: Я не раз бывал в Вест-Пойнте, где исполняют эту музыку каждый раз на 4 июля. Как известно, в этой увертюре есть “партия” для пушки. И в Академии стоит специальная пушка, из которой стреляют, когда исполняют это сочинение в день национального праздника Америки.

Я думаю, что все это говорит о том, как трудно понять ход истории современникам. Мы ведь видим только короткий отрывок длительной культурной эволюции. Именно поэтому так трудно художнику уловить сегодняшний день, он самый недоступный для наблюдения.

А какой музыкой мы завершим нашу беседу?

Соломон Волков: Я думаю, что самой подходящей музыкой будет заключительный хор Глинки “Славься”. Он напоминает нам о том, что подлинные произведения искусства в итоге возвращаются на свое место.

(Music)