The relationship between Soviet and post-Soviet culture. Development of culture in the Soviet and post-Soviet periods

The Moscow high-rise building is the personification of the Soviet era and the restored Cathedral of Christ the Savior is a symbol of the revival of Russia.

JJXX century after the Great October Socialist Revolution, Russia went through a difficult path of historical development, which was fully reflected in the state of national culture.

In this regard, the question of the preconditions and quality of fundamental changes that occurred in the public consciousness at least twice requires special reflection: in 1917 and during the period of perestroika. The 20s and 60s are read ambiguously in the history of Russian culture. It was a time of change, social upsurge, anticipation, and newness in everything.

In the dynamics of the cultural process we are faced with a kind of oscillatory movement. The points of highest tension in the creative efforts of the people were the revolutionary eras, which mercilessly destroyed the old order and outdated cultural stereotypes. Quieter phases of cultural development, years of creative work - the 30s, 50s, 70s. The cultural ferment during the years of NEP and the “Thaw” was the threshold of change or its echo. The post-Soviet phase of the cultural evolution of society can well be qualified as a crisis. Since we are his contemporaries and direct participants, it is not possible to make unambiguous judgments about the future of national culture. One can only express the hope that its best traditions - high spiritual, moral and civil-patriotic potential, the all-responsiveness of the national consciousness, the very rich heritage of culture - will not allow the spring of Russian culture to die out.

Soviet The main sociocultural component of the era was culture 1917-1927. became the cultural revolution. This

first ooslere - the process of a radical breakdown of the existing stereo-revolutionary types of social consciousness, spiritual and ten-legged moral guidelines in people's behavior. At the same time, the cultural revolution is a state policy aimed at changing the social composition of the post-revolutionary intelligentsia and breaking with the traditions of the cultural past. The creator of the slogan “cultural revolution” V.I. Lenin in his work “Pages from a Diary” defined its main tasks as follows: eliminating cultural backwardness and, above all, illiteracy of the country’s population, providing conditions for the development of the creative forces of the working people, the formation of a socialist

ical intelligentsia and the establishment of the ideology of scientific communism in the minds of the broad masses.

Work to eliminate illiteracy began immediately after the adoption of the government decree “On the elimination of illiteracy among the population of the RSFSR” on December 26, 1919. He obliged the entire population of the country from 8 to 50 years old to learn to read and write in Russian or their native language. At the origins of the educational movement were M.I. Kalinin, N.K. Krupskaya, A.V. Lunacharsky. Already by 1926, the number of literate population of the RSFSR almost doubled compared to the pre-revolutionary one, amounting to 61%. In 1927, the Soviet Union ranked 19th in Europe in terms of literacy rates. Over 50 million people remained illiterate after the age of 12

Theorists and practitioners of the new system were especially concerned with the question of forms of socialist culture that could consolidate the political system and ensure the successful construction of communist life in the country.

IN AND. Lenin attached particular importance to two questions: about personnel and about the intensification of the class struggle in the field of culture. He demanded from his party comrades extreme caution in this area, where the enemy would be especially “resourceful, skillful and tenacious.” First of all, this concerned pedagogy, social sciences and artistic creativity, and relations with the church.

Ideological restructuring was one of the most difficult areas of activity of the new government. She set a goal to radically change people's worldview, to educate them in the spirit of collectivism, internationalism, and atheism. In this regard, the greatest importance was assigned to the restructuring of the teaching of social sciences in higher education. A government decree of 1921 eliminated the autonomy of universities and introduced compulsory study of Marxist social disciplines.

Under the leadership of M.N. Pokrovsky presented Russian history from a Marxist position, which was viewed as the unfolding of the class struggle of working people throughout all centuries. The compulsory disciplines of the university social course included: party history, historical and dialectical materialism, political economy and scientific communism.

The expulsion from the country in 1922 of about 200 leading university specialists of the old school and the first graduation of personnel from the Institute of Red Professors in 1924 determined a turning point in the teaching of social sciences. By the mid-20s, the authorities were largely able to ensure professional cooperation with the old intelligentsia. Among those who supported the Soviet regime were scientists K.A. Timiryazev, I.V. Michurin, I.M. Gubkin, K.E. Tsiolkovsky,

10 Cult>rolosha

NOT. Zhukovsky, writers and poets A.A. Blok, V.V. Mayakovsky, V.Ya. Bryusov, theater figures E.B. Vakhtangov, K.S. Stanislavsky, V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, V.E. Meyerhold, A.Ya. Tairov.

Publishing agitation and propaganda activities developed widely. Immediately after the revolution, the State Publishing House of the RSFSR, the publishing houses “Communist”, “Life and Knowledge” were formed. The publishing houses “Bolshevik”, “Revolution and Church”, “Print and Revolution”, “Book and Revolution” spoke from Marxist positions. From 1922 to 1944 The central theoretical organ of the Bolshevik Party published the journal “Under the Nobles of Marxism.” The publication of the collected works of V.I. Lenin, C. Mars and F. Engels. The Socialist Academy and the Communist University were opened. Ya.M. Sverdlov, Institute of K. Marx and F. Engels, Institute of V.I. Lenin. To popularize the new ideology, Marxist scientists united in voluntary societies: the Society of Militant Materialists, the Society of Marxist Historians, the Union of Militant Atheists.

Atheist propaganda was widespread in the country, although the authorities did not speak openly in an irreconcilable spirit regarding the religious feelings of believers. With the help of activists of the Union of Militant Atheists, numbering about 3.5 million people, more than 50 museums of religion and atheism were opened in the country. The mouthpiece of the Union was the magazine “Bezbozhnik”, in the first issues of which a book by its chairman E.M. was published. Yaroslavsky “The Bible for believers and non-believers”, which soon turned into an atheistic anti-Bible.

The struggle between the authorities and the church intensified in 1922. On February 23 of this year, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued a decree that legalized the seizure of precious church items, including those of a liturgical nature. This stirred up the feelings of believers. An open confrontation between the authorities and the church began, from which the church emerged defeated. Already in the first half of the year, more than 700 people, mainly bishops, priests and monks, were brought to criminal responsibility. By December 1923, the number of high and middle rank clergy exiled to Solovki reached 2000. The Living Church group created in Moscow, led by priest A. I. Vvedensky, which demanded comprehensive reforms of the church system and doctrine, led to a split in the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia. After the death of Patriarch Tikhon Belavin in 1925, the authorities did not allow elections of a new patriarch to be held. The Church was headed by Metropolitan Sergius, who called for practical proof of the loyalty of the pastors and believers to the Soviet regime.

Artistic life in the country, like other spheres, abruptly changed its direction under the influence of the revolution. The broad working masses were awakening to creative life. The composition of viewers, readers, and listeners became more and more democratic. Art gradually fell more and more under the influence of ideology. The party set artists the task of creating a new culture, understandable to the common man.

During the Civil War, the “proletarian culture” movement gained particular popularity. The motto of the popular mass cultural and educational organization of the proletariat (Proletkult) was the demolition of the old world and its culture, the remains of which had to be “traversed by Carthage.”

The activities of Proletkults had a strong influence on the leftist movement in art, which made itself felt even after they had exhausted themselves by the mid-20s. The search for new means of artistic expression was carried out by literary and artistic groups, such as the “Left Front of the Arts” (LEF), “Forge”, “Serapion Brothers”, “Pass”, Revolutionary Theater V.E. Meyerhold, Association of Proletarian Artists, Association of Artists of Proletarian Russia. Among the artists, KS worked at the forefront. Malevich, P.N. Filonov, P.P. Konchalovsky, in cinematography - SM. Eisenstein, in the field of artistic design - V.E. Tatlin.

In the 20s, M. Gorky continued his active creative work. He actively resisted the onslaught of literary stereotypes and sweeping criticism of the revolution. In a series of articles in 1918 entitled (Untimely Thoughts), M. Gorky described the revolution through the eyes of various representatives of society, without idealization, but also without embellishment. Gorky’s “Thoughts” were filled with deep faith in the creative powers of man and the future revival of the country. While in In the 20s, while undergoing treatment abroad, the writer created the novel “The Artamonov Depot”, completed the autobiographical trilogy with the essay “My Universities”, created literary portraits of V.I. Lenin, L.N. Tolstoy, A.N. Chekhov, V.G. Korolenko , began work on his central epic, “The Life of Klim Sashin.”

Understanding the revolution and the panorama of life in post-revolutionary Russia is the central theme of the literature of the 20s. The first and most striking attempt at an artistic understanding of the revolution was A Blok’s poem “The Twelve.” The era also gave place to the romantic maximalism of young poets and prose writers who glorified the revolution (N. Aseev, E. Bagritsky, A Bezymensky, M. Svet-

fishing, N. Tikhonov, I. Utkin, D. Furmanov, A. Serafimovich, B. Lavrenev, A. Malyshkin), and the tragic attitude of representatives of the older generation (A. Akhmatova, V. Khlebnikov, O. Mandelstam, M. Voloshin , E. Zamyatin). B. Pasternak, V. Mayakovsky, M. Tsvetaeva, who before the revolution considered social problems alien to true poetry, turned to them in the 20s. The work of S. Yesenin reflected a dramatic break in the centuries-old way of peasant life, painful experiences about the death of “wooden” Rus'.

The adaptation of people to the new conditions of post-revolutionary life with subtle humor, often turning into sarcasm, was reflected in the works of M. Zoshchenko, A. Platonov, P. Romanov, M. Bulgakov. An attempt to go beyond the established stereotypes and show the full extent of the complexity of the formation of a new world and a new type of personality was made by A. Fadeev in the novel (The Defeat), M. Sholokhov in the first book (Quiet Don, K. Fedin in the novel "Cities and Years."

A striking phenomenon of the post-revolutionary era was Russian emigration. More than 2 million people left the country voluntarily. Among them are many representatives of creative professions. Composers S. Rachmaninov, I. Stravinsky, singer F. Chaliapin, ballerina A. Pavlova, choreographer J. Balanchine, artists K. Korovin, M. Chagall, writers I. Bunin, V. Nabokov, D. Merezhkovsky continued their activities abroad. , A. Kuprin, scientists N. And-rusov, V. Agafonov, A. Chichibabin, aircraft designer I. Sikorsky and many others.

The Russian emigrant environment was not unanimous in its assessment of the revolution and the changes it caused. One part spoke from purely irreconcilable positions. Their manifesto was I. Bunin’s speech “The Mission of Russian Emigration,” delivered in Paris in 1933 when he was awarded the Nobel Prize. The other part, grouped around the collection “Change of Milestones” (Paris, 1921), proposed accepting the revolution as a fait accompli and abandoning the fight against the Bolsheviks. Whatever the position of a Russian intellectual who finds himself outside of Russia, almost everyone has gone through the tragic path of realizing that without the Fatherland his creative destiny is untenable.

So, the first post-revolutionary decade played an important role in the formation of a new culture. The foundations of a new worldview were laid, a galaxy of young talented cultural figures was formed, and the first younger generation was raised on communist ideals. The country experienced a

fatal politicization of society and culture. The conditions for it were created by the elimination of illiteracy combined with the expansion of book publishing and propaganda campaigns. In the cultural development of the era, two trends collided: one - a straightened revolutionary onslaught, schematization of reality, the other - a deep and, as a rule, tragic understanding of the laws of a turning point. Another characteristic feature of the 20s was the diversity of literary and artistic life. In general, it was a time of intense creative search for something new.

Kvnwrvnimp The 30s are a time of tragic contradictions and the greatest achievements of Soviet culture

in the 30s at the same time. The “offensive of socialism along the entire front” aroused unprecedented enthusiasm for transformative activities. Changes have affected literally all areas of life. A. Tvardovsky called writers “engineers of human souls.” We build the Dnieper Hydroelectric Power Station - we will build a new culture, we will create a new person. Stakhanovites, Chelyuskinites, Papa-Ninites - they were all born on a wave of enthusiasm. Women got on tractors. In places of detention, socialist competition for the fulfillment of planned targets unfolded.

The wave of creative activity was not least determined by the completion of the process of eliminating illiteracy throughout the country. By 1937, literacy reached 81% in the USSR, and 88% in the RSFSR. The country implemented universal primary education. If in the first decade of Soviet power, the country's universities graduated about 30 thousand specialists annually, then in the 30s. - more than 70 thousand people. The number of intelligentsia increased from 3 million people in 1926 to 14 million people. in 1939. New replenishment of this layer amounted to 90% of its total number. Its ideological and political appearance and sociocultural status have changed. The Constitution of 1936 stated that the labor socialist intelligentsia henceforth constitutes an integral part of the working population of the country.

In the 1930s, literary and artistic life was brought into a controlled direction. However, it is unjustified to unequivocally assess this fact as purely negative. Despite the excesses, the creative activity of the intelligentsia not only did not die out, but, on the contrary, produced truly unsurpassed examples of talented works.

In 1932, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a resolution “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations,” which ordered all writers who support Soviet power and strive to participate in socialist construction to enter the

United Union of Soviet Writers. Similar changes were supposed to be carried out in all other arts. Thus, creative unions of writers, artists, and composers were created, which placed the activities of the country's intelligentsia under ideological control.

In 1935-1937 On the initiative of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, a discussion was held on the issues of overcoming formalism and naturalism in literature and art. Composer D. Shostakovich, director V. Meyerhold, and artists A. Deineka and V. Favorsky were accused of formalism. Accusations of “formalistic twists” were brought against writers I. Babel, Yu. Olesha, poets B. Pasternak, N. Zabolotsky, film directors S. Eisenstein and A. Dovzhenko. For some, harsh criticism cost their lives (poets B. Kornilov, P. Vasiliev, O. Mandelstam, V. Meyerhold), for others it was expressed in the oblivion of the works they created (tMacmep and Margarita by M. Bulgakov, Requiem by A. Akhmatova, "Chevengur" by A Platonov).

In the 30s, a new method of Soviet art was founded - socialist realism. His theory was presented at the first congress of writers of the USSR in 1934 by N.I. Bukharin. Socialist realism was declared as a method and style of creativity, requiring from the artist a truthful, historically specific image of reality, combined with the task of ideological reworking and education of workers in the spirit of socialism.

Literary life of the 30s. was marked by the publication of significant works that became classics of Soviet literature. The fourth book “The Life of Klim Samgin” by M. Gorky, the final book “Quiet Don” and the novel “Virgin Soil Upturned” by M.A. Sholokhov, and the novels “Peter the Great” by AN were created. Tolstoy, “Salt” by L.M. Leonov, “How the steel was tempered” ON Ostrovsky.

Among the dramatic works, “Man with a Gun” by N.F. Pogodin and “Optimistic Tragedy” by V.V. were especially popular. Vishnevsky and “Death of the Squadron” by A.E. Korneychuk. The epic mastery of history and modernity is reflected in the poems of AT. Tvardovsky “Country Ant”, P.N. Vasiliev “Salt Riot”, N.I. Rylenkov "Big Road".

The era of collective creative work brought to life a mass song and a march song. Then “Wide is my native country” by V.I. was born. Lebedev-Kumacha, “Song about the Oncoming Person” by B.P. Kornilova, “Katyusha” by M.V. Isakovsky.

In the 1930s, the country created its own cinematography base for the first time. The comedies “Have Fun, Guys”, “Circus”, “Volga-Volga”, “Shining Path” were released on screens. The series of films is dedicated to the hero

pits of history and revolution: “Peter the Great”, “Bogdan Khmelnitsky”, “Suvorov”, “Alexander Nevsky”, “Chapaev”, “Shchors”, “Baltic Deputy”. The names of SM film directors thundered throughout the country. Eisenstein, M.I. Romma, S.A. Gerasimova, G.V. Aleksandrova.

The musical achievements of the 30s are associated with the names of S.S. Prokofieva, D.D. Shostakovich, AI. Khachaturyan, D.B. Kabalevsky, I.O. Dunaevsky. For the 30s. The creative activity of conductors EA Mravinsky and AV flourished. Gauk, SL Samosud, singers S.Ya. Lemesheva, I.S. Kozlovsky, pianists M.V. Yudina, Y. V. Fliera.

In 1932, the Union of Composers was created, and famous ensembles appeared: the Beethoven Quartet, the Great State Symphony Orchestra. In 1940, the Concert Hall named after P.I. opened its doors. Tchaikovsky.

In painting, as in cinematography, a genre of cheerful paintings appeared, glorifying the “truth of simple life.” Its most famous examples were the SV canvases. Gerasimov “Collective Farm Holiday” and A A Plastov “Holiday in the Village”.

One of the leading artists of socialist realism was B. Ioganson. In the 30s, he created the textbook famous paintings “At the Old Ural Factory” and “Interrogation of a Communist.”

Extensive construction brought to life the flourishing of monumental painting. Artists E.E. worked in this direction. Lansere (painting of the restaurant halls of the Kazansky railway station in Moscow and the Moscow Hotel, majolica panel “Shtrostroevts!” at the Komsomolskaya metro station), A A Deineka (mosaics of the Mayakovskaya and Novokuznetskaya metro stations), M.G. Manizer (sculptural groups at the Ploshchad Revolyutsii metro station).

Book graphics also flourished. Illustrations for works of art were created by artists V.A. Favorsky, E.A. Kibrik, D.A. Shmarinov, S.V. Gerasimov, EI. Charushin, Yu.A Vasnetsov, V.M. Konashevich.

Soviet science in the pre-war years received worldwide recognition. Work began on the study of the atomic nucleus, radiophysics and radio electronics. In the 30s V.I. continued to work Vernadsky, I.P. Pavlov, K.E. Tsiolkovsky, I.V. Michurin. Among the young scientists, the names of A.A. stood out. Tupoleva, I.V. Kurchatova, IL. Kapitsa. The research of the drifting station "North Pole" under the leadership of I.D. became world famous. Papanin, direct flights of Soviet aircraft piloted by V.P. Chkalov, M.M. Gromov, A.V. Belyakov, V.K. Kokkinaki and the female crew of M.M. Raskova, ID. Osipenko, B.C. Grizodubova.

The attitude of the authorities towards the church became tougher in the 1930s. A system of state control over the activities of religious organizations was created. There was a widespread campaign to close Orthodox churches. The most ancient cathedrals and temples were destroyed en masse. The activities of the clergy were strictly limited. As part of an uncompromising fight against religion, a campaign was launched to destroy church bells. Thus the church was finally brought under state control.

Soviet ^ years of war with Nazi Germany pre-culture during the years, respect was given to the operational forms of the Great Cultural Work, such as radio, cinema-

Domestic photography, printing. From the first days of the war, the importance of radio increased immediately. Information Bureau reports

broadcast 18 times a day in 70 languages. Poster art reached an unprecedented peak. I.M.’s poster carried a great emotional charge. Toidze “The Motherland is Calling!”, poster by V. B. Koretsky “Warrior of the Red Army, save!”

In 1941, the evacuation of cultural institutions began on a large scale. By November 1941, it was possible to move 60 theaters in Moscow, Leningrad, Ukraine and Belarus. On the basis of the evacuated film studios "Lenfilm" and "Mosfilm" in Almaty, the Central United Film Studio was created, where film directors S. Eisenstein, V. Pudovkin, the Vasilyev brothers, I. Pyryev worked. In total, during the war years, 34 full-length films and almost 500 film magazines were created. Among them: “Secretary of the District Committee” I.A. Pyryeva, “Two Fighters” by L.D. Lukov, documentary film “The Revolts of German Troops near Moscow.”

Front-line brigades and theaters were created to serve the front culturally. During the war years, more than 40 thousand artists were among them at the front. Among them are actors I.I. Moskvin, A.K. Tarasova, N.K. Cherkasov, M.I. Tsarev.

More than a thousand writers and poets worked as correspondents in the active army. Ten writers were awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union: M. Jalil, P. Vershigora, A. Gaidar, A. Surkov, E. Petrov, A. Bek, K. Simonov, M. Sholokhov, A. Fadeev, N. Tikhonov. During the war years, significant works of art were created: the story by K. Simonov “Days and Nights”, the poem by 4. Tvardovsky “Vasily Terkin”, the novel by A. Fadeev “The Young Guard”.

The leading literary genre of the era was the fighting lyrical song: “Dugout”, “Evening on the roadstead”, “Nightingales”, “Dark Night”. The war and heroism of the Soviet people are reflected in the paintings of artists 4. Deineka (“Defense of Sevastopol”), S. Gerasimov (“Mother of the Partisan”), 4. Plastov (“The Fascist Flew”).

The brightest page in the cultural life of besieged Leningrad was the premiere of D. Shostakovich’s Seventh Leningrad Symphony, dedicated to the defenders of the city.

The topics of scientific research during the war years were focused on three main areas: the development of military-technical projects, scientific assistance to industry and, above all, the military, and the mobilization of raw materials. In 1941, the Commission for the mobilization of resources of the Urals, Western Siberia and Kazakhstan was created under the leadership of A.A. Baykova, I.P. Bardin and S.G. Strumilina. In 1943, a special laboratory headed by physicist I.V. Kurchatov resumed work on the fission of the uranium nucleus.

The Soviet education system has undergone a number of changes. A new type of educational institutions were created - boarding schools for teenagers and evening schools for working youth. Military training was introduced into school programs, and in high school students combined study and work in workshops, industrial enterprises and agriculture. Compared to peacetime, the number of students in higher educational institutions has decreased by more than three times, and the number of teachers has decreased by two times. The average duration of training was 3-3.5 years. A significant phenomenon was the creation in 1943 of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR, headed by Academician V.P. Potemkin.

Assessing the damage to cultural property, the Extraordinary State Commission to investigate the atrocities of the invaders named, among others, 430 destroyed museums out of 991 located in the occupied territory, 44 thousand palaces of culture and libraries. The house-museums of L.N. were looted. Tolstoy in Yasnaya Polyana, A.S. Pushkin in Mikhailovsky, P.I. Tchaikovsky in Klin. Frescoes of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral dating back to the 12th century, manuscripts by Tchaikovsky, paintings by Repin, Serov, and Aivazovsky were irretrievably lost.

During the war years there was a “warming” of relations between church and state. In 1945, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy (Simansky) was elected. The adopted resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR provided for the creation of a Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, the opening of the Orthodox Theological Institute, theological and pastoral courses, and stipulated the procedure for opening churches. In August 1945, the Soviet government granted religious organizations the rights of a legal entity in terms of rental, construction and purchase of houses, transport and utensils for church needs.

Thus, during the testing years, Soviet culture demonstrated not just resilience, it showed its best in action.

traditions - high citizenship, patriotism, ideological and moral high ground, compassion, responsiveness, nationality. The pre-war and war eras, as it were, delivered a historical verdict: a new socialist culture has taken place! Culture in the first place The transition from war to peace created favorable

post-war present conditions for the development of culture, state

decade, military spending has increased significantly. The strengthening of centralized management of cultural sectors was facilitated by the creation of the USSR Ministry of Higher Education, the Department of Science and Higher Educational Institutions under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, and the USSR Ministry of Culture.

Much attention was paid to strengthening the territorial base of scientific research. For the first time, new branches of the USSR Academy of Sciences appeared in Yakutia, Dagestan, and Eastern Siberia. In the second half of the 40s. The Institute of Precision Mechanics and Computational Technology, the Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics, the Institute of Applied Geophysics, the Institute of Physical Chemistry, the Institute of Atomic Energy, and the Institute of Nuclear Problems were opened. To provide assistance to construction in 19S0, a Committee of the USSR Academy of Sciences was created, headed by its President SI. Vavilov.

In the post-war years, the ideological work of the party took center stage. Numerous party resolutions dealt with a wide range of problems, affecting almost all spheres of society. The main efforts were directed towards promoting justice for the restoration of the country's national economy and criticizing phenomena alien to the Soviet way of life.

The leading ideological institutions of the country remained the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute, in 1956 renamed the Institute of Marxism-Leninism under the Central Committee of the CPSU, and the Higher Parish School. They were supplemented by the Academy of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of the Party (1946), two-year party schools and retraining resources. In 1947, the All-Union Society for the Dissemination of Political and Scientific Knowledge “Knowledge” was created, headed by the President of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Vavilov.

The ideological and political situation after the war turned out to be false. The psychological climate in society has changed. People's sense of self-esteem has increased, and their legal circle has expanded. Child homelessness remained a problem; former Soviet prisoners of war and civilians who were forcibly removed from play during the occupation were sent to camps and exile.

The struggle against sycophancy towards foreigners that unfolded in the country especially hampered international contacts in the field of science and technology. Major achievements of foreign scientists in the field of quantum mechanics and cybernetics were declared hostile to materialism. Genetics and molecular biology were recognized as false, and research in the field of which was practically stopped. A monopoly position in the field of agrobiology was occupied by the group of Academician T.D. Lysenko, supported by the country's leadership.

A typical phenomenon of the late 40s. development campaigns and ideological discussions began. Such discussions were held in the fields of philosophy, history, political economy, and linguistics. A number of magazines, some dramatic productions, V. Muradeli’s opera “Great Friendship”, and the film “Big Life” were accused of being apolitical, lacking ideas, and promoting bourgeois ideology. A. Akhmatova, M. Zoshchenko, D. Shostakovich came under attack from criticism. The campaign against cosmopolitanism and formalism acquired wide proportions. D. Shostakovich, S. Prokofiev, N. Myaskovsky, V. Shebalin, A. Khachaturian were again accused of formalism. The USSR Academy of Arts, created in 1948, headed by A.M., joined the fight against formalism in art. Gerasimov.

The policy of increasing ideological pressure on the creative intelligentsia has led to a slight reduction in the number of new works of literature and art. If in 1945 45 full-length films were released, then in 1951 - only 9. Guardianship over the authors forced them to constantly remake their works in accordance with given guidelines. This is, for example, the fate of the film by A. P. Dovzhenko “Michurin”, the drama by N. F. Pogodin “The Creation of the World”. Among the most significant works of the post-war era in the field of literature, “Distant Years” by K.G. stands out. Paustovsky, “First Joys” and “An Extraordinary Summer” by K.A. Fe-dina, “Star” by E.G. Kazakevich. The classics of Soviet cinema include films by S.A. Gerasimov’s “Young Guard” and B.V. Barnet’s “The Feat of a Scout.”

Soviet Cultural situation of the second half of the 20th century. Culture in the years in Russia was determined by dramatic changes in the Soviet political system. With N.S. coming to power in 1953. Khrushchev began large-scale liberalization in all spheres of public life. A turning point in culture was already evident by the beginning of the 60s and made itself felt until their end. The process of democratization of public life was called the “thaw” after the story of the same name by I. G. Ehrenburg. Epoch renegade 299 ^

change in Soviet society coincided with a global sociocultural revolution. In the second half of the 60s, a youth movement intensified in developed countries of the world, opposing itself to traditional forms of spirituality. For the first time, the historical results of the 20th century were subjected to deep understanding and new artistic interpretation. The question of “fathers and sons”, fatal for Russia, began to sound in full force.

In Soviet society, the milestone of change was the 20th Congress of the CPSU (February 1956). The process of spiritual renewal began with a discussion of the responsibility of the “fathers” for the departure from the ideals of the October Revolution. A confrontation between two social forces came into play: supporters of renewal and their opponents.

The writing community also split into a democratic camp, represented by the magazines Yunost and Novy Mir, and a conservative one, led by the magazines Oktyabr, Neva and the adjacent magazines Our Contemporary and Young Guard. The work of Yu.N. was rehabilitated. Tynyanova and M.A. Bulgakov. In 1957, after a break of almost twenty years, the production of M.A.’s play was resumed. Bulgakov's "Running", and in 1966 the novel "The Master and Margarita", written in the 30s, was first published. The publication of the magazine “Foreign Literature” was also resumed, publishing on its pages the works of E.M., popular among young people. Remarque and E. Hemingway.

At the end of the 50s, a new phenomenon arose in the literary life of the country - samizdat. This name was given to typewritten journals of creative youth who were opposed to the realities of Soviet reality. The first such magazine, “Syntax,” founded by the young poet A. Ginzburg, published the prohibited works of V. Nekrasov, B. Okudzhava, V. Sha-lamov, B. Akhmadulina.

During the “thaw” years, highly artistic works of literature appeared, imbued with citizenship and concern for the fate of the socialist Motherland. These are the poems by A. T. Tvardovsky “Terkin in the Other World” and “Beyond the Distance,” the novel by T.E. Nikolaeva “The Battle on the Way”, story by E.G. Kazakevich “Blue Notebook”, poem by E.A. Yevtushenko "Stalin's Heirs". A. I. Solzhenitsyn’s story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” powerful in its tragic intensity, brought fame to the author. On the pages of the magazine “Youth” a new literary genre of “confessional literature” was born, which described the doubts and tossing of the younger generation.

Despite all the democratic innovations, the leading position of communist ideology remained in the field of culture. Party head N.S. Khrushchev openly sought to

to attract the artistic intelligentsia to the side of the party, considering them as “machine gunners”.

The tradition of development campaigns has been preserved. In 1957, the novel by V.D. was subjected to public condemnation. Dudintsev “Not by Bread Alone”, which opened the theme of repression in literature. In 1958, the “Pasternak case” thundered across the country. N.S. himself personally Khrushchev spoke out against the poet A.A. Voznesensky, whose poems were distinguished by complicated imagery, film directors MM. Khutsiev, creator of the films “Spring on Zarechnaya Street” and “Two Fedora”, M.I. Romm, who directed the feature film “Nine Days of One Year.” In December 1962, during a visit to an exhibition of young artists on Manezhnaya Square, Khrushchev scolded the “formalists” and “abstractionists.” Control over the activities of the creative intelligentsia was also carried out through “orientation” meetings of the country’s leaders with leading cultural figures.

N.S. Khrushchev had a great personal influence on cultural policy. He was the initiator of school reform. The 1958 law introduced compulsory eight-year incomplete secondary education in the country and increased the period of study in complete secondary school to 11 years. Compulsory industrial training for high school students was introduced. Admission to a university was possible only with two years of work experience.

At the initiative of the country's leader, the scientific system, like other spheres of culture, underwent a serious organizational restructuring. Only fundamental research remained under the jurisdiction of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Nevertheless, applied topics were transferred to special institutes and laboratories, the number of which increased sharply. The Joint Institute for Nuclear Research was created in Dubna, the Institute of High Energy Physics operated in Protvino, the Institute of Electronic Technology in Zelenograd, and the Institute of Physical, Technical and Radio Engineering Measurements in the village of Mendeleev. Nuclear energy, electronics and space research became priority branches of science. In 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant was launched in Obninsk. An invaluable contribution to the development of computer technology was made by the Soviet scientist S.A. Lebedev, who was at the origins of the creation of the first Soviet computer.

Soviet science achieved its most outstanding successes in the 50s and 60s in the field of space exploration and rocket science. On October 4, 1957, the world's first space satellite was launched, ushering in the space age of mankind. On April 12, 1961, for the first time in the history of mankind, Soviet pilot Yu.A. Gagarin flew into space on the Vostok spacecraft. The first space

Living satellites, ships, and rockets were created under the leadership of the talented designer of the joint venture. Queen. A Cosmonaut Training Center was established in the village of Zvezdny near Mozhva. The first Baikonur cosmodrome was built in Kazakhstan.

Cultural New era of Soviet history associated with

life of the country named after L.I. Brezhnev, in the field of culture ha-

The 60-80s were characterized by contradictory trends. On the one hand, the fruitful development of all spheres of the country’s cultural life continued, on the other hand, the ideological control of the country’s leadership and the activities of the creative intelligentsia became more intense. Some of its representatives were convicted (A. Sinyavsky, Y. Daniel), others were forcibly expelled from the country (A. Solzhenitsyn), others fled their homeland and worked abroad (A. Tarkovsky, Y. Lyubimov, V. Nekrasov, I. Brodsky , M. Rostrapovich, G. Vishnevskaya, G. Kondraishn). Avant-garde movements in art are kept silent. For example, musical works were not performed [.G. Schnittke, the work of B.Sh. was semi-banned. Okudzha-y, A A Galich, B.C. Vysotsky. In order to regulate the themes of artistic works, a system of state orders was introduced in the mid-70s, primarily in the field of cinematography. The concept of a “shelf film” was born, filmed but not released on the wide screen due to “ideological inconsistency.”

The pressure from the ideological press was a kind of response to the remaining opposition sentiments in society, which received expression in the dissident movement. At the end of the 60s, the main dissident movements united into the “Democratic Movement”. It was represented by three directions: “genuine Arxism-Leninism” (brothers R. and Zh. Medvedev), liberalism (A.D. Sakharov) and traditionalism (A.I. Solzhenitsyn). Under the influence of the dissident movement in the USSR from 1967 to 1975. An international problem of the first magnitude was the question of Czech rights in the USSR.

Despite all the difficulties and contradictions, the literary life of the 70s was distinguished by unprecedented diversity and richness. Literature and music especially stood out, and literature was distinguished by a wealth of themes. This is the Great Patriotic War (Yu.V. Bondarev, B.L. Vasiliev, K.D. Vorobyov), and the life of the village council (V.G. Rasputin, V.A. Soloukhin, V.P. Astafiev, F.A. Abshov, V.I. Beloe, B.A. Mozhaev), and moral problems of modernity (Yu.V. Trifonov).

A special place in art was occupied by books and films by V.M. Shukshin, who derived images of “strange” people from the people. For the 60s The creativity of the talented poet Ya. Rubtsov flourished. His lyrics are characterized by extreme simplicity, sincerity, melodiousness, and an inextricable connection with the Fatherland.

The author of popular plays was the playwright AB. Vampiloe. The work of national writers and poets was widely known in the country: Kyrgyz Ch. Aitmatov, Belarusian V. Bykov, Georgian Y. Dum-badze, Estonian J. Cross.

The 70s were a time of the rise of theatrical art. The Moscow Taganka Drama and Comedy Theater was especially popular among the leading metropolitan public. Among other groups, the Lenin Komsomol Theater, the Sovremennik Theater and the E. Vakhtangov Theater stood out.

The Academic Bolshoi Theater in Moscow, the Moscow Conservatory, and the Moscow and Leningrad Philharmonic remained the center of musical life. Among the famous ballet dancers of the Bolshoi Theater, the names of G. Ulanova, M. Plisetskaya, K. Maximova, V. Vasiliev, M. Liepa thundered. Choreographer Yu. Grigorovich, singers G. Vishnevskaya, T. Sinyavskaya, B. Rudenko, I. Arkhipova, E. Obraztsova, singers Z. Sotkilava, Vl. Atlantov, E. Nesterenko. The domestic performing school was represented by violinists D.F. Oistrakh, L. Kogan, G. Kremer, pianists ST. Richter, E.G. Gilels. The national art of composition reached its highest level in the work of G. V. Sviridov, who dedicated his musical works to the theme of the Motherland.

Pop art has also made great strides forward, gaining worldwide fame. The “stars” of the first magnitude were E. Piekha, S. Rotoru, A. Pugacheva, I. Kobzon, L. Leshchenko, M. Magomaev.

In the same 70s, the “tape revolution” began. Songs of famous bards were recorded at home and passed from hand to hand. The works of Y. Vizbor, Y. Kim, A. Gorodnitsky, A. Dolsky, S. Nikitin, N. Matveeva, E. Bachurin, V. Dolina were very popular. Youth pop vocal and instrumental ensembles increasingly won the sympathy of young people. One of these first famous groups was the Aquarium ensemble under the direction of B. Grebenshchikov. Condition In the second half of the 80s in Russia, the second-domestic R° and R33 over the course of a century, a real cultural cultural revolution took place. Creative values ​​at the end of the 20th century of the Soviet way of life and Soviet culture were not only questioned, but were rejected as totalitarian, inhumane and unprogressive. The main reason for the collapse was not so much

[The readiness of the intelligentsia to defend the best traditions of socialist culture is equal to the alienation of the ordinary person from the spiritual ideals of the October era. The rich potential of the spiritual orientation of socialism has not deeply penetrated the soul of every citizen and has not embraced all social strata. For a significant part of society, the cultural values ​​of socialism remained a buried system. An anti-creative stereotype of ideas about the place of socialist culture and theology has formed in society according to the principle: here is the temple, here is the parishioner, here is the main [problem: church attendance.

The start of perestroika in the field of culture was given by the policy of managed glasnost, proclaimed in 1987. Soon its implementation indicated that expanding the limits of glasnost should inevitably lead to the removal of all barriers to the spread of cultural knowledge. The process gradually became uncontrollable. It began with the expansion of independence of creative teams, the traditional ideological guardianship over which was first weakened and then completely removed. The decision taken at government level to stop jamming Western radio stations actually legalized freedom of competition in the sphere of ideas and the means of their dissemination. The information explosion has posed many new problems for society. How to prevent deviation from socialist principles and at the same time guarantee freedom of expression? How to maintain the boundaries of state information and set limits to the interference of informational activities in the personal lives of citizens? The most important milestone in the development of the glasnost process was the introduction of the Press Law on August 1, 1990. Its very first paragraph declared the freedom of the media and the prevention of their censorship. So lacHOCTb was introduced into an uncontrolled channel.

New realities of cultural life have also emerged in society. In the context of a freely emerging market, foreign cultural production has significantly displaced domestic ones. The consequence is a sharp decline in the quality and quantity of Russian products, [an entire branch of culture—the cinema—disappeared. This determined the restructuring of public consciousness on an individual basis. and the poorly developed social apathy affected the decline in the attendance of other traditional entertainment venues: theaters, concert halls, art exhibitions. The younger generation, left by foreign film production outside traditional spiritual and moral guidelines, is absorbing alien ideas more and more deeply. The ideal of a strong, successful, all-expecting individual, who goes ahead in the name of his goals, is implanted on screens, profoundly

Boko is alien to the national consciousness with its compassion, all-tolerance, responsiveness, and kindness. This deepens the gap between generations and makes it impossible for young people and old people to understand each other. A big and serious problem is the spontaneous mass spread of religious sectarian groups in the country, which are drawing the younger generation into their networks, uprooting them from their native soil. All this is complemented by a sharp increase in uneven access to the consumption of cultural goods, which especially negatively affects the education of the younger generation.

The “ice break” of glasnost, along with the lifting of restrictions on the media and the commercialization of creative activity, was also determined by the repeal of decisions to deprive Soviet citizenship of a number of cultural representatives who left the country in the 70s. The time since the second half of 1989 can well be called “Solzhenitsyn.” All the most important works of the writer, his famous “GULAG Archipelago” and the epic “The Red Wheel” were published in magazines and in separate editions. The literary community of the country received ambiguously the works of V. Voinovich, V. Aksenov, and A. Zinoviev, which were distinguished by a sharp anti-Soviet orientation and at the same time demonstrated the high professionalism of their creators.

The turning point in Russian literature was determined by the publication of both newly created and previously unpublished works by writers A. Rybakov, D. Granin, A. Platonov, M. Shatrov, B. Pasternak, A. Akhmatova, V. Grossman. The works of dissidents A. Marchenko and A. Sinyavsky were published for the first time. The works of emigrant writers who took strong anti-Soviet positions saw the light of day: I. Bunin, A Averchenko, M. Aldanov. A vast layer of perestroika literature was occupied by journalism, focusing on the “blank spots” of the ancient and recent history of society in the USSR. The democratic stream of journalism was represented by the names of I. Shmelev, I. Klyamkin, V. Selyunin, G. Khanin, N. Petrakov, P. Bunin, A Nuikin, G. Popov, Yu. Afanasyev, Yu. Chernichenko, G. Lisichkin, F. Burlatsky, G. Ryabov.

The camp of traditionalists includes V. Kozhinov, B. Sarnov, G. Shmelev, M. Kapustin, O. Platonov, A. Kozintsev, S. Kunyaev, V. Kamyanov, I. Shafarevich, A. Lanshchikov.

Among the publications on historical subjects, a series of articles by R. Medvedev “It surrounded Stalin” and a documentary novel about Stalin by D. Volkogonov “Trueif and Tragedy” stood out.

The surge of interest in historical topics was determined by the activities of the Commission of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee to study materials related to the repressions of the 30-50s. In the informational monthly magazine “Izvestia of the Central Committee of the CPSU”, which was resumed after 60 years, for the first time materials were published on all the main oppositions of Stalin’s time, a report by N.S. Khrushchev at the 20th Congress, transcripts of congresses and plenums of the Central Committee of the Party, which were previously banned.

Liberation also affected the sphere of art. Talented cultural figures actively participated in world artistic life, began performing on famous stages in Europe and America, and were given the opportunity to enter into long-term employment contracts abroad. Singers D. Hvorostovsky and L. Kazarnovskaya, the Moscow Virtuosi ensemble under the direction of V. Spivakov, and a folk dance ensemble under the direction of I. Moiseev perform on the largest musical stages in the world.

Representatives of Russian musical culture living abroad became frequent guests in Russia: M. Rostrapovich, G. Kremer, V. Ashkenazi. On the stage of the Taganka Theater, director Yu. Lyubimov resumed his creative activity. Innovative searches in dramatic art are carried out by a galaxy of talented directors of the new theatrical wave: P. Fomenko, V. Fokin, K. Raikin, T. Chkheidze, R. Vikpiok, V. Tershey.

Festivals, competitions, and exhibitions organized with money from sponsors and patrons have become a form of unity for cultural workers to replace the collapsed creative unions. Participates in cultural and government expenditures on a limited scale. Funds were allocated, as a rule, for organizing anniversary celebrations on a national scale: the 50th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War, the 300th anniversary of the Russian Navy, the 850th anniversary of Moscow. Using state funds and public donations, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow is being restored, a monumental sculpture is being erected on the occasion of anniversary celebrations: the Obelisk of Victory and a multi-figure composition (Tragedy of Nations" on Poklonnaya Hill, an 80-meter sculpture of Peter I in Moscow (author Z. Tsereteli). In In a more modest and soulful manner, a monument to Sergius of Radonezh was created in his homeland in the village of Radonezh near Moscow, a monument to Marshal Zhukov on Manezhnaya Square and a monument to Nicholas II (exploded) in the village of Taininskoye near Moscow (sculptor V. Klykov).

The crisis in domestic science today is due to two factors. First of all, this is a lack of funding from the outside

states. Only in 1992-1997. government spending on science was reduced by more than 20 times. The second reason is that the state does not have a strategic program for the development of domestic science. In market conditions, only a few groups have found buyers for their property.

Soviet culture started in the days of the October Revolution of 1917, declaring its decisive protest against the idols of the previous era. However, despite the sharp opposition of itself to the old world, the young proletarian culture involuntarily absorbed its best traditions. She took the baton of the cultural heritage of the eras into her own hands, enriching it with new forms and content. Soviet culture created its own unique arsenal of expressive means of creative achievements and scientific discoveries. She was distinguished by high citizenship, interest in the common working person, and creative pathos. It is represented by the names of world-class figures: M. Gorky, V. Mayakovsky, A. Blok, B. Pasternak, D. Shostakovich, S. Prokofiev, D. Oist-rakh, S. Richter, K. Stanislavsky. The contribution of Soviet scientists in the field of rocket science, space exploration, and nuclear physics is great. The Soviet ballet worthily took over the baton of the famous Russian ballet school. The Soviet general education system provided serious training to young people in a wide range of applied and fundamental sciences, introducing industrial practice that helped the younger generation enter an independent working life. Soviet culture achieved great achievements, not least thanks to the strong ideological cohesion of society.

Any social phenomenon, including culture, is never free from negative manifestations. The problem is not they, but the ability of the authorities and the public to find constructive ways of agreement among themselves. This is where the main stumbling block lies for Soviet, as well as for Russian reality. As soon as a set of problems arise that require immediate resolution, the mechanism of irreconcilable confrontation between the intelligentsia and the authorities almost automatically turns on, into which sooner or later the entire people are drawn, dooming the country to a new tragic turn in its history. Nowadays we are just passing through this obligatory part of our historical spiral.

“Russia, Rus'! Protect yourself, protect yourself! - these words of the poet Nikolakh Rubtsov sound like a testament to all of us.

Basic terms and concepts

Dystopia Abstract art Atheism State:

General remarks

Post-Soviet culture should be characterized by covering the period 1985-1991, which went down in history as the period of “perestroika and glasnost.” Speaking about post-Soviet culture, one cannot fail to take into account such historical events as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp, the liberalization of the economy, the emerging signs of freedom of speech, and most importantly, the Communist Party has ceased to be a political monopolist.

In addition, the usual planned economy collapsed, and the people began to rapidly become poor. B. Yeltsin's coming to power had a significant impact on the cultural situation in the country: such celebrities as M.L. returned from forced emigration. Rostropovich, G. Vishnevskaya (musicians), A. Solzhenitsyn and T. Voinovich (writers), E. Neizvestny (artist). At the same time, thousands of professionals left Russia, mainly in the technical field, which was associated with a huge reduction in funding for science.

Note 1

The fact that our scientists were hosted by the most famous foreign scientific centers indicates that Soviet science in previous years was at the forefront.

The high adaptability of Russian culture was manifested in the fact that, for example, despite the reduction in funding for culture, in the heady 90s, about 10 thousand private publishing houses appeared, which literally in the shortest possible time published almost all the books that were banned in the USSR and that could " get it" only in "samizdat". Many so-called thick magazines appeared that published interesting analytical works.

Religious culture has also returned. This was manifested not only in the number of believers, by the way, this can be attributed to fashion, but also, most importantly, in the restoration and restoration of churches, cathedrals and monasteries. Orthodox universities also began to appear. But painting, architecture and literature of the 90s were not marked by bright talents.

It is impossible to characterize the culture of Russia in the 90s in any way, positively or negatively - too little time has passed. Now we can only outline the cultural realities of that time.

So, after the collapse of the USSR, a single culture broke up into 15 national cultures, which “disowned” both the common Soviet culture and each other’s cultural traditions. All this led to sociocultural tension, often expressed in military conflicts.

Note 2

And yet, the threads connecting culture cannot be torn so easily, but only they have been refracted in a unique way.

First of all, culture was affected by the disappearance of a unified cultural policy, i.e. culture lost a guaranteed customer and came out from under the dictates of the state. It was necessary to choose a new development path, and this choice caused heated discussions.

On the one hand, opportunities arose for the development of spiritual culture after the fall of ideological barriers, and on the other, the economic crisis led to the commercialization of culture, which led to the loss of its national characteristics and the Americanization of many branches of culture.

We can say that the current stage of development of Russian culture is transitional. Russia has experienced a cultural revolution twice in just one century, i.e. Some cultural values ​​that have not had time to form are rejected and new ones begin to emerge.

At the present stage, mutually exclusive trends are emerging in Russian culture:

1. subordination of Russian culture to Western standards;
2. progressive, based on the ideas of patriotism, collectivism, social justice, which have always been professed by the peoples of Russia.

The struggle between them determines the development of Russian culture in the third millennium.

Note 3

Today's Russian culture is a very complex, ambiguous phenomenon. On the one hand, it determines the directions of the world socio-cultural process, on the other hand, it is influenced by Western culture in the broad sense of the word.

A significant part of the Russian population, having lost faith in the tsar and trust in the church, made Bolshevism their religion and committed a revolution. However, there is a serious difference between Christian eschatology and Bolshevik utopia, well shown by the German philosopher G. Rohrmaser: “The fundamental difference between utopia, including socialist, and Christian eschatology is that the latter is historically and politically realized as the present, and not as the future ! Christian eschatology contains no other meaning than the idea of ​​​​how to make a person capable of perceiving the present, while utopian thinking depicts the future as a result of the negation of the present. Utopia is realized in the process of liberating a person from the present, when a person loses his present. Christian eschatology, on the contrary, takes a person out of the crazy faith in the future that has taken possession of him, preoccupied with the fact that a person always only has to or wants to live, but never lives. This eschatology orients him towards the present.” Thus, a future-oriented utopia gives sanction for the destruction of the present. This is what makes revolutions scary.

The price of revolution for Russia and Russian culture is high. Many cultural creators were forced to leave Russia. Russian emigration of the 20th century. gave a lot to world culture and science. One can cite many names of people who worked in physics, chemistry, philosophy, literature, biology, painting, sculpture, who created entire movements, schools and showed the world great examples of folk national genius.

The contribution of Russian thinkers abroad to the world philosophical process, translations and publications of their works in the main languages ​​of the world contributed to the recognition of Russian philosophy as highly developed and original. They have priority in posing a number of problems in cultural studies, history of philosophy, and philosophy of history. These include understanding the role of Orthodoxy in the development of the Russian people, analysis of the national specifics of Russian culture, reflections on the main features of the Russian nation in the 20th century, on the “Russian idea”, etc.

Cultural life in Soviet Russia acquired a new dimension. Although until the early 30s. There was relative ideological pluralism, various literary and artistic unions and groups operated, and the leading trend was towards a total break with the past, towards the suppression of the individual and the exaltation of the masses and the collective. In artistic creativity, there were even calls to “burn Raphael in the name of our tomorrow,” destroy museums, and “trample the flowers of art.”

Social utopianism flourished, there was a powerful impulse towards new forms of life in all its spheres, various technical, literary, artistic, architectural projects, even extravagant ones, were put forward. For example, there was talk about the communist transformation of all life. It was planned to build residential buildings in which there would be only small, secluded bedrooms, and dining rooms, kitchens, and children's rooms would become common to everyone.

The denial of the immortality of the soul led to the idea of ​​the immortality of the body. The placement of Lenin's body in the mausoleum was also connected with the hope of someday resurrecting him. In the subconscious of the Russian people there has always been a glimmer of hope for the possibility of immortality of the body. N. F. Fedorov considered the main problem to be the “resurrection of the fathers.” Communism, which aimed to create the kingdom of God on Earth, received approval from the people also because it supported the belief in bodily immortality. The death of a child in A. Platonov’s “Chevengur” is the main proof that communism does not yet exist. A generation of people who grew up in the conditions of Soviet mythology was shocked by the physical death of Stalin. Is this where such a grandiose “great farewell” comes from, and did not faith in communism collapse after this death on a subconscious level?

Bolshevism brought to its logical conclusion the idea that had formed in European thought in the 18th-19th centuries. the idea of ​​active transformation, remaking of nature. Already in the first years of Soviet power, L. D. Trotsky declared that, having done away with class enemies, the Bolsheviks would begin to remake nature. In Maxim Gorky’s 3-volume collected works, published in the 50s, you can find an article entitled “On the fight against nature.” In other articles, Gorky argued that “in the Union of Soviets there is a struggle between the rationally organized will of the working masses against the spontaneous forces of nature and against that “spontaneity” in man, which in essence is nothing more than the instinctive anarchism of the individual.” Culture, according to Gorky, turns out to be the violence of reason over the zoological instincts of people. Theoretical calculations were put into practice in the post-war “Stalinist great plan for the transformation of nature.” After Stalin's death, the construction of a large number of large objects was stopped, including the Main Turkmen Canal, the Volga-Ural Canal, the Volga-Caspian Waterway, and the Chum-Salekhard-Igarka polar railway. The last echo of those times was the infamous project of transferring part of the flow of northern rivers to the south.

In the 30s a new stage has begun in the development of culture. Relative pluralism was over. All literary and artistic figures were united into single unified unions. One artistic method has become established - the method of socialist realism. Utopian impulses were put to an end. Some elements of the national cultural tradition were restored. A national model of totalitarianism has emerged. It turned out that a certain archaic state of society was restored. Man turned out to be totally involved in social structures, and the lack of separation of man from the masses is one of the main features of the archaic social system.

At the same time, despite the external similarity, for example, with the position of a person in the Muscovite kingdom, there were serious differences. The industrialization of society gave it dynamics; the stability of an archaic society was impossible. The instability of a person’s position in society, his inorganic involvement in structures forced a person to value his social status even more. The need for unity with other people is a natural need of a person of any culture. Even in the individualistic culture of the West, the phenomenon of so-called escapism is known - flight from freedom, noted by E. Fromm. This need, which has become the only and dominant one, is a powerful psychological root of social utopianism, a social support for designing an ideal society. Any such project leads to totalitarianism, which in the broadest sense of the word is the domination of the universal over the individual, the impersonal over the personal, and all over one.

The “post-Stalin” period of national history is characterized by a slow, gradual, with zigzags and retreats, restoration of contacts and connections with world culture, the understanding of the role of the individual and universal human values ​​is being rethought. The Soviet period had a serious impact on the way of thinking of the people, their mentality, and the typical personality traits of a Russian person. This was noted by major writers, “experts of human souls” M. A. Sholokhov, A. I. Solzhenitsyn. According to the testimony of M. A. Sholokhov’s son, his father told him that pre-revolutionary people had a different attitude towards life: “as something infinitely strong, stable, incommensurate with human goals and capabilities... From childhood, a person learned perseverance, learned blame yourself for your failures, not life.” A.I. Solzhenitsyn notes the loss by the people of such qualities as openness, straightforwardness, agreeableness, long-suffering, endurance, “non-pursuit” of external success, readiness for self-condemnation and repentance.

In our time, the conviction is strengthening that any people, any nation can exist and develop only if they preserve their cultural identity and do not lose the originality of their culture. At the same time, they do not fence themselves off from other peoples and nations, but interact with them, exchanging cultural values. In difficult historical and natural conditions, Russia survived, created its own original culture, fertilized by the influence of both the West and the East, and in turn enriched world culture with its influence. Modern national culture faces a difficult task - to develop its strategic course for the future in a rapidly changing world. There is an important prerequisite for this - the achievement of universal literacy, a significant increase in the education of the people. Solving this global problem is complex and requires awareness of the deep contradictions inherent in our culture throughout its historical development.

These contradictions constantly manifested themselves in various spheres of life, reflected in art, in literature, in the search for high value and semantic content of life. There are many contradictions in our culture: between individualism and collectivism, high and ordinary, elitist and popular. Along with them, in Russian culture there were always features of a very deep gap between the natural pagan principle and Orthodox religiosity, the cult of materialism and commitment to lofty spiritual ideals, total statehood and unbridled anarchy, etc.

The mysterious antinomy of Russian culture was described by N. A. Berdyaev in his work “Russian Idea”. Russia, on the one hand, is the most stateless, most anarchic country in the world, and on the other hand, the most state-owned, most bureaucratic country in the world. Russia is a country of boundless freedom of spirit, the least bourgeois country in the world, and at the same time, a country devoid of consciousness of individual rights, a country of merchants, money-grubbers, and unprecedented bribery of officials. Russians combine endless love for people, Christ's love, with cruelty and slavish obedience.

The troubled times that Russian culture is now experiencing is not a new phenomenon, but our culture has always found one or another answer to the challenges of the time, continuing to develop. It was during the most difficult periods of Russian history that the greatest ideas and works were born, new traditions and value orientations arose.

The peculiarities of the current “time of troubles” in Russia are that it coincides with the global world crisis, and the Russian crisis is part of the global crisis, which is felt most acutely in Russia. The whole world found itself at a crossroads at the turn of the 21st century; we are talking about a change in the very type of culture that was formed within Western civilization over the past several centuries. Therefore, the thesis about the alleged “fallout of Russia” after the events of 1917 from world civilization and the need to now return to this civilization seems controversial. World civilization is a collection of civilizations of different countries and peoples that have not kept pace at all. Among these civilizations is the Russian one, which also contributed to the treasury of world civilization in the Soviet period of history; it is enough to mention the role of our people in the crushing of Nazism and fascism, successes in space exploration, and social transformations.

In the last decade, new layers of spiritual culture have been discovered, previously hidden in unpublished artistic and philosophical works, unperformed musical works, banned paintings and films. It became possible to look at many things with different eyes.

In modern Russian culture, incompatible values ​​and orientations are combined: collectivism, conciliarity and individualism, egoism, deliberate politicization and demonstrative apoliticality, statehood and anarchy, etc. Today, such mutually exclusive phenomena as the newly acquired cultural values ​​of the Russian diaspora coexist on equal terms , a newly rethought classical heritage, the values ​​of official Soviet culture. A general picture of cultural life is emerging, characteristic of postmodernism, widespread in the world by the end of the 20th century. This is a special type of worldview, aimed at the rejection of all traditions, the establishment of any truths, oriented towards unbridled pluralism, recognition of any cultural manifestations as equivalent. Postmodernism is not able to reconcile the irreconcilable, since it does not put forward fruitful ideas for this; it only combines contrasts as the source material for further cultural and historical creativity.

The prerequisites for the current socio-cultural situation emerged several decades ago. The widespread introduction of the achievements of science and technology into the sphere of production and everyday life has significantly changed the forms of functioning of culture. The widespread distribution of household radio equipment has entailed fundamental changes in the forms of production, distribution and consumption of spiritual values. “Cassette culture” has become uncensored, because selection, reproduction and consumption are carried out through the free will of people. Now a special type of so-called “home” culture is being created, the constituent elements of which are, in addition to books, radio, television, video cassettes, and a personal computer. A kind of “bank of world culture” is being formed in the “memory of the apartment.” Along with positive traits, there is also a tendency towards increasing spiritual isolation of the individual. The system of socialization of society as a whole is radically changing, and the sphere of interpersonal relationships is being significantly reduced.

By the end of the 20th century. Russia again faced a choice of path. Culture has entered an intertemporal period fraught with different perspectives. The material base of culture is in a state of deep crisis. Collapsing libraries, a lack of theater and concert halls, and a lack of funding aimed at supporting and disseminating the values ​​of folk, classical culture contrast with the explosion of interest in cultural values ​​that is characteristic of many countries. A complex problem is the interaction between culture and market. The commercialization of culture occurs, the so-called “non-commercial” works of art remain unnoticed, and the possibility of mastering the classical heritage suffers. Despite the enormous cultural potential accumulated by previous generations, the spiritual impoverishment of the people occurs. This is one of the main reasons for many economic problems and environmental disasters. Because of lack of spirituality, crime and violence grow, and morality declines. The danger to the present and future of the country is the plight of science and education.

Russia's entry into the market led to many unexpected consequences for spiritual culture. Many of the representatives of the old culture found themselves out of work, unable to adapt to new conditions. The assertion of freedom of speech has deprived literature and other arts of the important dignity they once had - to express the truth, perfecting Aesopian language in order to circumvent censorship. Particularly affected was literature, which had long occupied a leading place in the system of Russian culture and in which interest had now significantly decreased; moreover, the speed of social change was such that it was not easy to immediately comprehend it.

If the creation of cultural works is approached as a profit-making business, as an ordinary ordinary product, then the prevailing desire is not for perfection or high spiritual ideals, but for obtaining maximum benefits at minimal costs. Culture is now forced to focus not on spiritual man, but on economic man, indulging his basest passions and tastes and reducing him to the level of an animal. A unique “market personality” is being formed, which one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century characterizes. E. Fromm wrote that “a person is no longer interested in either his own life or his own happiness, he is only concerned about not losing the ability to sell himself.” Determining the paths for further cultural development became the subject of heated debate in society, because the state stopped dictating its demands to culture, the centralized management system and a unified cultural policy disappeared. One of the points of view is that the state should not interfere in the affairs of culture, since this is fraught with the establishment of a new dictate over culture, and culture itself will find the means for its survival. There is another opinion: ensuring freedom of culture, the right to cultural identity, the state takes upon itself the development of strategic tasks of cultural construction and responsibilities for the protection of cultural and historical national heritage, the necessary financial support of cultural values. The state must realize that culture cannot be left to business; its support, including education and science, is of great importance for maintaining the moral and mental health of the nation.

The “crisis of spirituality” causes severe mental discomfort in many people, since the mechanism of identification with superpersonal values ​​is seriously damaged. Without this mechanism, not a single culture exists, and in modern Russia all super-personal values ​​have become questionable. Despite the contradictory characteristics of national culture, society cannot allow a separation from its cultural heritage, since this inevitably means its suicide. A disintegrating culture is little adapted to transformation, because the impulse for creative change comes from values, which are cultural categories. Only an integrated and strong national culture can relatively easily adapt new goals to its values ​​and master new patterns of behavior.

The process of cultural borrowing is not as simple as it might seem at first glance. Some borrowed forms easily fit into the context of the borrowing culture, others with great difficulty, and others are completely rejected. Borrowings must be carried out in forms compatible with the values ​​of the borrowing culture. In culture, you cannot follow world standards. Each society forms a unique value system. K. Lévi-Strauss wrote about this: “... The originality of each culture lies primarily in its own way of solving problems, the perspective placement of values ​​that are common to all people. Only their significance is never the same in different cultures, and therefore modern etiology is increasingly striving to understand the origins of this mysterious choice.”

Unfortunately, modern Russia is once again going through radical changes, accompanied by tendencies to destroy or abandon many of the positive achievements of the past. All this is being done for the sake of the speedy introduction of a market economy, which supposedly will put everything in its place. Meanwhile, when seriously studying the history of other countries, including the most “market” ones, it turns out that it was not the market that created new values ​​and patterns of behavior in them, but the national culture of these countries mastered the market, created both moral justifications for “market behavior” and and limiting this behavior by cultural prohibitions.

Analysis of the state of modern Russian culture reveals the absence or weakness of stable cultural forms that reproduce the social system, reliable coherence of cultural elements in time and space. In our opinion, a fairly accurate description of the current state of Russia is contained in the words of the philosopher V. E. Kemerov: “Russia exists as an indefinite set of social groups, regional formations, subcultures, united by a common space, but weakly connected by the time of social reproduction, productive activity, ideas about prospects, etc. The modernity of all these formations remains a problem.” The collapse of the totalitarian regime quickly revealed the underdetermination and non-manifestation of many forms of our life, which was characteristic of Russian culture before and which some Russian thinkers defined as “a lack of the middle area of ​​culture.”

N. O. Lossky pointed out that “the lack of attention to the middle area of ​​culture, no matter what justifying circumstances we find, is still a negative side of Russian life.” Hence the extremely wide range of good and evil, on the one hand - colossal achievements, and on the other - stunning destruction and cataclysms.

Our culture can provide an answer to the challenges of the modern world. But for this it is necessary to move to such a form of its self-awareness that would cease to reproduce the same mechanisms of irreconcilable struggle, harsh confrontation, and the absence of a “middle”. We need to get away from thinking that is oriented towards maximalism, a radical revolution and the reorganization of everything and everyone in the shortest possible time.

Avoidance of radicalism can be achieved by creating a stable system of public self-government and the formation of a middle culture that guarantees the participation of various social, ethnic and religious communities. For the normal existence of society, a diverse, self-organizing cultural environment is necessary. This environment includes socio-cultural objects associated with the creation and dissemination of cultural values, such as scientific, educational, artistic institutions, organizations, etc. However, what is most important is the relationships of people, the conditions of their daily life, the spiritual and moral atmosphere. The process of forming a cultural environment is the basis of cultural renewal; without such an environment it is impossible to overcome the effect of social and psychological mechanisms that divide society. Academician D.S. Likhachev believed that the preservation of the cultural environment is no less important than the preservation of the surrounding nature. The cultural environment is as necessary for spiritual and moral life as nature is necessary for man for his biological life.

Culture is a holistic and organic phenomenon; it is not artificially constructed or transformed, and such experiments only lead to its damage and destruction. With great difficulty, in the minds of many people, including scientists, the idea of ​​specificity and diversity of development of different cultures is established, each of which is integrated into the global civilizational process in its own way, relying on its deep spiritual and moral archetypes, which cannot be distributed across ranks into progressive and reactionary. The philosopher Yu. M. Borodai believes that “... where the earthly life of people developed more or less tolerably, it was built not on speculative speculation and calculations, but on sacred things, that is, on moral imperatives, “prejudices”, if you like, unique to each of the peoples, which makes them unique collective personalities, social individuals. The human world is multicolored and interesting precisely because the basis of the culture of each people is its own cult shrines, which are not subject to any logical justification and cannot be adequately translated into the language of another culture.”

There are different cultures in the world, but they cannot be “better”, “worse”, “right”, “wrong”. The mistake is the desire to “correct”, “improve”, “civilize” them according to some model, to idealize some model. Genuine universal values ​​can arise only in the dialogue of all earthly societies and civilizations.

Culture of Russia of the Soviet and post-Soviet period

1. CULTURE OF RUSSIA IN THE SOVIET AND POST-SOVIET PERIODS

1 Soviet culture 1917-1929

2 Soviet culture 1929-1956

3 Soviet culture 1956-1991

4 Culture of Russia in the post-Soviet period

1. CULTURE OF RUSSIA SOVIET AND POST-SOVIET

PERIODS

Three main stages can be distinguished in the development of Soviet culture. The first of them covers 1917-1929. and is marked by the struggle between the tendency towards ideological and cultural pluralism and the desire of the party state to suppress diversity and create a totalitarian culture. The second stage falls on 1929-1956. and is characterized by the dominance of an ideologically monopolistic culture, the dominance of the method of socialist realism in the sphere of artistic activity.

1.1 Soviet culture 1917-1929

By October 1917, Russia was in a state of deep crisis. The First World War and the losses and hardships associated with it caused economic devastation and an extreme aggravation of socio-political contradictions. The Bolsheviks seized power, and economic chaos grew in the country, aggravated by the brutal Civil War.

At first, the new Russian government did not have the opportunity to deal with cultural issues in full. However, soon after October, measures were taken to centralize the management of literature and art. Slogans were proclaimed that reflected the political and ideological position of the new government and were designed to strengthen its position among broad sections of the Russian population. The main goal for the future was a radical restructuring of people's consciousness, the education of a new type of person, a builder of a socialist society.

Among the first events in the field of culture were the creation of the People's Commissariat of Education (Narkompros), designed to implement the decisions of the Soviet government, the nationalization of theaters, museums, libraries and other cultural objects. In January 1918, a decree was issued, according to which the school was separated from the church, and the church from the state. The scope of church rituals narrowed, and the population’s negative attitude toward them and toward religion in general intensified. Thus, the wedding ceremony was abolished and replaced by civil registration of marriage.

Repressions against church ministers and anti-religious propaganda became one of the important points in the policy of the Soviet government. The magazine “Revolution and the Church” and the newspaper “Bezbozhnik” began to be published, and in 1925 the “Union of Atheists” was created. The main tasks of the ruling party were the organization of educational and cultural activities in the new conditions, as well as the propaganda of communist ideas among broad social strata. In 1917, three-quarters of the country's adult population was illiterate, and the primary task became raising the educational level of the bulk of the country's residents. For this purpose, a large-scale program to eliminate illiteracy (educational program) was developed. In December 1919, the government adopted a decree “On the elimination of illiteracy among the population of the RSFSR,” according to which the entire population from 8 to 50 years old had to learn to read and write in their native and Russian languages. The program provided for the creation of a network of primary schools, educational clubs, as well as the opening of workers' faculties (working faculties) to train young people who did not have a secondary education for universities.

In 1923, the “Down with Illiteracy” society was organized in the USSR. By 1932 it united over 5 million people. According to the 1926 census, the literacy rate of the population was already 51.5%, including 55% in the RSFSR. Mass form of training of workers in 1921-1925. became FZU (factory apprenticeship) schools. Lower management and middle technical personnel (foremen, foremen, mechanics) were trained in technical schools, specialized schools, and short-term courses. The main type of vocational educational institution at this level was technical schools with a 3-year term of study.

The attitude of the authorities towards the old intelligentsia remained contradictory: from attempts to attract the cooperation of some of its representatives to persecution and repression of those who were suspected of lack of loyalty to the new government. Lenin argued that most of the intelligentsia were "inevitably imbued with a bourgeois worldview." During the years of the Civil War and devastation, the Russian intelligentsia suffered heavy losses. Some prominent figures of humanitarian culture died, many lost the conditions necessary for normal work. A. Blok died of illness and exhaustion, N. Gumilyov was shot allegedly for participating in a White Guard conspiracy. The Bolsheviks were more tolerant of representatives of the scientific and technical intelligentsia, trying to attract experienced specialists to solve pressing problems of economic construction. One of the tasks set by the Soviet government was the formation of a new intelligentsia, in solidarity with the policies of the Bolsheviks.

During the Civil War, the support of the new government was supported by Proletkult, formed in October 1917, a community of cultural figures that proclaimed the class approach as the basis of its creativity. Its leaders (A.A. Bogdanov, V.F. Pletnev and others) called on the proletariat to abandon the artistic heritage of the past and create “completely new” socialist forms of art. The network of Proletkult organizations covered the entire Soviet Russia, absorbing almost 400 thousand people. This association introduced a lot of vulgar, primitive, pseudo-artistic samples into new literature and other forms of art, being subjected to impartial criticism by M.A. Bulgakov in the novel “The Master and Margarita”. In the 20s Proletkult was abandoned by his temporary fellow travelers, the most talented prose writers and poets.

In the field of higher education, the government also pursued a class policy, creating favorable conditions for workers and peasants to enter universities. The number of universities increased rapidly, in the early 20s. reaching 224 (in 1914 there were 105). At the same time, ideological control over the activities of higher educational institutions intensified: their autonomy was eliminated, academic degrees were abolished, and compulsory study of Marxist disciplines was introduced.

During the Civil War, there was widespread emigration. More than 2 million people left the country, including hundreds of thousands of highly qualified specialists, some of whom subsequently became world famous abroad. Outstanding figures of artistic culture also found themselves outside of Russia, including F.I. Shalyapin, S.V. Rachmaninov, I.A. Bunin, A.I. Kuprin, I.S. Shmelev, V.F. Khodasevich, V.V. Nabokov, K.A. Korovin, M.Z. Chagall. The “philosophical ship” became notorious, on which a large group of famous thinkers were expelled from Russia in 1922 (N.A. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov, N.O. Lossky, I.A. Ilyin, P.A. Sorokin, etc.).

And although the majority of the intelligentsia remained in their homeland, the resulting brain drain led to a noticeable decrease in the spiritual and intellectual potential of society. The level of its (potential) as a whole has noticeably dropped not only due to material and human losses, but also due to the strict control over the sphere of culture by the ruling Bolshevik party, whose policy included an ideological monopoly and restriction of freedom of creativity.

In the early 1920s. A centralized state system of cultural management was created. Narkompros was actually subordinate to the department of agitation and propaganda of the Central Committee of the party (Agitprop). Under the People's Commissariat of Education in 1922, the Main Directorate for Literature and Publishing (Glavlit) was established, which issued permits for the publication of works, and also, being endowed with the right of censorship, compiled lists of works prohibited for sale and distribution.

The Soviet political leadership considered it necessary to carry out a cultural revolution, to create a new type of culture based on the class approach and proletarian ideology. However, even if this attitude was maintained throughout the entire existence of Soviet culture, individual periods of its development were different from one another.

The 1920s were the most unique, when disagreements emerged in the party and society on the issue of the path to transition to socialism. The Bolshevik government was forced to somewhat liberalize its policies, primarily economic and partly cultural. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was proclaimed, which lasted until the end of the 20s. This time became at the same time the most striking period in the development of Russian Soviet culture, characterized by relative spiritual freedom. The creative activity of writers and artists revived, various ideological and artistic movements and groups emerged. The rivalry between them was accompanied by heated polemics and bold experimentation. In general, cultural and artistic pluralism (even if limited by the Bolshevik regime) turned out to be very fruitful.

An indicative sign of the vibrant cultural and social life of the 20s. - creative discussions. Thus, in 1924, the subject of discussion became the formal method in art. New magazines were a means of mass dissemination of ideas and opinions, and subsequently played a prominent role in the socio-political and artistic life of the country (New World, Young Guard, October, Zvezda, etc.).

The formation of a new culture took place in an atmosphere of increased artistic activity and intense creative and aesthetic quest. Literature developed most intensively, still preserving the diversity of schools, movements, and groups that inherited the creative potential of the art of the Silver Age. Among the large number of works created at this time, there were many masterpieces that made the glory of Russian Soviet literature. Their authors are E.I. Zamyatin, M.A. Bulgakov, M. Gorky, M.M. Zoshchenko, A.P. Platonov, M.A. Sholokhov, S.A. Yesenin, N.A. Klyuev, B.L. Pasternak, O.E. Mandelstam, A.A. Akhmatova, V.V. Mayakovsky, M.I. Tsvetaeva and other wordsmiths were looking for new ways and forms of creative expression, while continuing to develop the best traditions of high Russian culture.

Literature of the 20s characterized by great genre diversity and thematic richness. In prose, the genres of novella, short story, and essay have reached their greatest flourishing. They clearly showed themselves in small genres I.E. Babel (“Cavalry”), M.A. Sholokhov (“Don Stories”), P. Platonov and others. M. Gorky (“The Life of Klim Samgin”), M.A. worked on epic novels. Sholokhov (“Quiet Don”), A.N. Tolstoy (“Walking through Torment”), M.A. Bulgakov (The White Guard). Poetry was especially popular during this period; There was an intense struggle between innovative associations and their leaders.

In the 20s Numerous literary associations and groups operated: “Serapion Brothers”, “Forge”, “Pereval”, LEF, RAPP, etc. Old and new modernist movements made themselves known: constructivists, acmeists, futurists, cubo-futurists, imagists, oberiuts.

By the end of the second decade, talented young writers L.M. moved to the forefront of the literary process. Leonov, M.M. Zoshchenko, E.G. Bagritsky, B.L. Pasternak, I.E. Babel, Yu.K. Olesha, V.P. Kataev, N.A. Zabolotsky, A.A. Fadeev. M.A. created their famous works. Bulgakov (“Heart of a Dog”, “Fatal Eggs”, “Days of the Turbins”, “Running”) and A.P. Platonov (“The pit”, “Chevengur”).

Dramaturgy experienced a rise. Theater as a democratic form of artistic creativity did not so much serve the purposes of political agitation and class struggle, but rather, with its special means, highlighted the vital and socio-psychological problems of the era, dissected complex human relationships and, most importantly, boldly experimented in the field of advanced art, finding new forms of confidential communication between actors with the audience.

In the first post-revolutionary decade, despite the regulation of the activities of this type of art by cultural authorities (primarily in relation to the repertoire), theatrical life remained dynamic and diverse. The most striking phenomenon of Russian theatrical life continued to be the Moscow Art Theater (Moscow Art Academic Theatre), headed by the founders of Russian theater directing K.S. Stanislavsky and V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko. This theater, especially beloved by the public, even after the revolution (with a slightly changed name) remained faithful to realistic traditions, humanistic ideas, and the requirements of high professional skill.

Outstanding theater director E.B. emerged from the Moscow Art Theater studio. Vakhtangov, whose work was characterized by the idea of ​​serving the theater to high and aesthetic ideals, a keen sense of modernity, and an original stage form. The name of Vakhtangov is associated with the brightest event in the theatrical life of that time - the production of the play “Princess Turandot” by C. Gozzi in February 1922.

Academic, traditional theaters (Moscow Art Theater and BDT) were opposed by the so-called “left” theaters, which demanded a “theatrical October”, the destruction of old art and the creation of a new, revolutionary one. The political and aesthetic manifesto of “left” art was Mayakovsky’s play “Mystery-bouffe”, staged by V.E. Meyerhold in November 1918. According to a number of theater experts, this play marked the beginning of Soviet drama.

It should be noted that both during the period of “war communism” and during the NEP period, all theaters were ordered from above to stage plays on revolutionary themes.

In the fine arts of the 20s, just as in literature, a variety of movements and groups coexisted with their own platforms, manifestos, and systems of expressive means. Many currents interacted with each other, united and diverged again, divided, disintegrated. In 1922, as if continuing the ideological and aesthetic traditions of the Association of Traveling Art Exhibitions that had remained in the past, the Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia (AHRR) was created. In 1928, it transformed into the Association of Artists of the Revolution (AHR) and took a dominant position in artistic life.

In 1925, a group appeared, the Society of Easel Artists (OST), whose members opposed non-objective art, opposing it with updated realistic painting. Artists with different artistic ideas and methods were united by the alternative societies “Moscow Painters” and “Four Arts”. Among the famous masters of new creative unions one can name A.V. Lentulova, I.I. Mashkova, I.E. Grabar, A.V. Kuprina, P.P. Konchalovsky, M.S. Saryan, R.R. Falka.

This period was a time of competition between two main directions in the development of art: realism and modernism. In general, there was a noticeable influence of the Russian avant-garde on the cultural life of the country. In painting, various modernist attitudes were characteristic of the work of K.S. Malevich, M.Z. Chagala, V.V. Kandinsky. In music, S.S. emerged as bright experimenters. Prokofiev, D.D. Shostakovich. In the theater, new methods of dramatic art were created by E.B. Vakhtangov, V.E. Meyerhold; in cinema, S.M. is rightfully considered the creator of innovations. Eisenstein, V.I. Pudovkin. Style diversity is a sign of that time.

1.2 Soviet culture 1929-1956

Since the late 20s. There have been radical changes in the life of Soviet society. The market option for the economic development of the country was rejected, which was explained by the strengthening of the power of the Communist Party, which set the task of mobilizing all resources for accelerated socialist construction. A totalitarian political system was taking shape, there was a sharp restriction of artistic freedom, a curtailment of forms of ideological pluralism, and the establishment of strict party-state control over all areas of social life. This had a negative impact on the development of culture. A sharp change in cultural policy in 1929-1934. was accompanied by the elimination of the remnants of artistic pluralism and literary factionalism.

In the 1930s There have been fundamental changes in the organization of artistic life, in the management of cultural processes, the functioning of literature and other types of art. In 1932, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a resolution “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations,” according to which, instead of the previous associations and groups, creative unions were to be created in each art form in order to, with their help, put the activities of the artistic intelligentsia under party-ideological control. In 1932, the Union of Soviet Architects and the Union of Composers of the USSR were created. In 1934, the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers was held, declaring the only correct new method of art - socialist realism. In fact, this method began to be used as a tool to limit creative pursuits.

The concept of socialist realism required a reflection of reality in its revolutionary development. Cultural figures were expected to glorify the leaders and the Soviet way of life, glorify the labor enthusiasm and selfless struggle of the people for a “bright future,” and the voluntary self-denial of individuals from personal interests in favor of public ones. Dogmatic canons were created (not inferior in “degree of holiness” to religious ones) regarding the content, form and social purpose of works of art. The method of socialist realism was strictly prescribed to artists in all spheres of culture; it set a strict ideological framework for all types of artistic creativity. Those who disagreed with the established requirements faced persecution and disgrace. Nevertheless, during this unfavorable period, some cultural figures managed to create bright and original works that affirmed universal human values ​​and captured epoch-making images and events.

Literature. They completed (started in the previous period) work on major works by M. Gorky (“The Life of Klim Samgin”), M.A. Sholokhov (“Quiet Don”, “Virgin Soil Upturned”), A.N. Tolstoy (“Walking through Torment”), N.A. Ostrovsky (“How the steel was tempered”). A number of talented works were written by V.P. Kataev, Yu.N. Tynyanov, E.L. Schwartz.

For fiction 30s. were especially difficult. Most of the former creative groups were dissolved, and many writers were subjected to repression. The victims of the Stalinist regime were D.I. Kharms, N.A. Klyuev, O.E. Mandelstam and many other creative personalities. Works that did not meet the strict requirements of party censorship were not published and did not reach the reader.

The regulations of socialist realism caused serious harm to the literary process. Writers were forced to impose far-fetched criteria for assessing a person and reality. The official literature was dominated by stilted themes and techniques, simplified images, hypertrophied optimism, aimed at glorifying the heroism of labor achievements at numerous Stalinist construction sites. Fulfilling a social order biased by the Pharisaic authorities, M. Gorky publicly praised the work of the builders of the White Sea-Baltic Canal - a large-scale socialist “correction” of the camp masses.

Genuine art was partly forced to go underground - “catacombs”. Some talented creators began to “write on the table.” Among the unpublished, rejected in these cruel years are the masterpieces of Bulgakov, Zamyatin, Platonov, the autobiographical cycle “Requiem” by Akhmatova, the diaries of Prishvin, the poems of the repressed Mandelstam, Klyuev and Klychkov, the works of Kharms and Pilnyak, which were subsequently published several decades later. But socialist realism did not stop the development of Russian literature, but, paradoxical as it may sound, served as a kind of “dam” that somewhere raised its level and forced it to flow along complex channels.

Constrained by narrow boundaries, artists tried to move into areas and genres that were less subject to party control. Partly thanks to this circumstance, Soviet children's literature flourished. Excellent works for children, for example, were created by S.Ya. Marshak, K.I. Chukovsky, S.V. Mikhalkov, A.P. Gaidar, A.L. Barto, L.A. Kassil, Y.K. Olesha.

Interest in the historical genre has increased, as evidenced, in particular, by the unfinished novel by A.N. Tolstoy “Peter the Great” (1929-1945), historical epic by A.S. Novikov-Priboy "Tsushima" (1932-1935).

Relatively few lyric poems were published, but the genre of mass song became very popular. National fame came to the songwriters M. Isakovsky (“Katyusha”, “And Who Knows Him”), V. Lebedev-Kumach (“Song of the Motherland”, “Merry Wind”); the whole country sang the “Song of Kakhovka” to the verses of M. Svetlov. Many songs written in the spirit of social optimism and revolutionary romanticism, oddly enough, lost the features of routine officialdom.

Mass forms of art - theater and cinema - developed rapidly. If in 1914 there were 152 theaters in Russia, then by January 1, 1938 there were 702. The art of cinema enjoyed increased attention from the ruling party and the state, since it was distinguished by a quick and lasting impact on people’s consciousness; 30-40s became the time of formation of the Soviet cinematographic school. Her achievements are associated with the names of directors S.M. Eisenstein, G.V. Alexandrova, S.A. Gerasimova, M.I. Romm, Vasilyev brothers. The comedies “Volga-Volga”, “Jolly Fellows”, “Circus”, historical films “Chapaev”, “Alexander Nevsky”, “Peter the Great”, “Suvorov” were very popular.

Musical culture was also on the rise. The State Symphony Orchestra of the USSR (1936), the Folk Dance Ensemble of the USSR (1937) were formed, and the Russian Folk Choir continued its creative activities. M. Pyatnitsky, Song and Dance Ensemble of the Red Army. Songs by composers I.O. were especially popular. Dunaevsky, M.I. Blantera, V.P. Solovyov-Sedoy. Famous singers L.O. won national recognition. Utesov, S.Ya. Lemeshev, I.S. Kozlovsky, K.I. Shulzhenko, L.P. Orlova, L.A. Ruslanova. Composers D.D. reached high peaks in the field of operatic, symphonic, and instrumental music. Shostakovich, S.S. Prokofiev, D.B. Kabalevsky, A.I. Khachaturian.

In painting and sculpture of the 30s. Socialist realism reigned. B.V. worked in this vein and received official recognition. Ioganson, A.A. Deineka, S.V. Gerasimov. However, their contemporaries, the talented artists K.S., were not appreciated. Petrov-Vodkin, P.D. Korin, V.A. Favorsky, P.P. Konchalovsky. The leading position was occupied by the portrait genre, in which the objects of depiction were, first of all, party and government figures (primarily Stalin), as well as officially recognized figures of science and art, simple workers - leaders of production. In 1937, at the height of Stalin’s terror, a talentedly executed sublime image of the Soviet era appeared - the monumental statue “Worker and Collective Farm Woman” by V.I. Mukhina, who became a symbol of idealized statehood.

In 1935-1937 On the initiative of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, a discussion was held on the issue of overcoming formalism and “lack of ideas” in literature and art. Shostakovich, Eisenstein, Meyerhold, Babel, Pasternak and others were subjected to harsh criticism and persecution. The works of creative figures who did not fit into the Procrustean bed of socialist realism were not published or performed or were subject to censorship “correction”, all kinds of restrictions and semi-bans. In fact, the work of representatives of the Russian avant-garde was banned.

In the 30s There was a noticeable growth in education and science - at that time the priority areas of Soviet culture. In education, the most important achievement was the elimination of illiteracy. The 1939 census showed that adult literacy had risen to 81.2%. Primary and incomplete secondary education predominated. A unified educational system was formed (primary school - 4 grades, junior high - 7 grades and secondary - 10 grades), new schools were built and opened at a rapid pace. More than 30 million children studied in general education schools - three times more than before the revolution.

The country's leadership set the task of creating a modern industrial society and boosting the economy using the achievements of science. In the development of the higher education system, traditionally, emphasis was placed on training specialists in the natural sciences, technology, and engineering. The number of university graduates has increased sharply. Before the war, the total number of specialists with higher education exceeded a million.

According to the census, by that time the ranks of the intelligentsia as a whole had grown significantly. Compared to 1926, its size and the number of people engaged in mental work increased approximately 5 times. The change in its status was recorded in the 1936 USSR Constitution, which stated that “the socialist intelligentsia constitutes an integral part of the working population of the country.”

Over the two decades of Soviet power, noticeable progress was achieved in the field of science: the number of scientific workers approached 100 thousand, which exceeded the pre-revolutionary level by almost 10 times. There were about 1,800 research institutes in the USSR (289 in 1914). In science in the 30-40s. such great scientists as V.I. Vernadsky, I.P. Pavlov, I.V. Kurchatov, P.L. Kapitsa, S. V. Lebedev.

But obvious disproportions have emerged in the structure of Soviet science. The development of the humanities was constrained by narrow ideological frameworks. An obstacle to the development and enrichment of the social and human sciences was the dominance of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine and the resulting dogmatism and oblivion of the pluralism of approaches and opinions. Increased pressure on these sciences and the corresponding academic disciplines, the establishment of a complete ideological monopoly occurred after the publication in 1938 of Stalin’s “Short Course in the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)”, in which guiding primitive assessments were given to issues of modern history identified from a class perspective. The same negative purpose was served by those published already in the early 50s. “directive works” of “indisputable authority” “Marxism and issues of linguistics”, “Economic problems of socialism in the USSR”, containing simplistic dogmas.

Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). Many problems and contradictions of Soviet society were exposed by the war. It was a time of moral upsurge and spiritual unity of the people. In order to achieve victory over the external enemy, the authorities were forced to postpone the “witch hunt” and introduce a temporary moratorium on mass repressions for dissent and “unauthorized initiative.” For thinking people, these years, despite all the hardships, seemed like a “breath of freedom.” The activity of the creative intelligentsia has increased.

In the art of the war years, the leading theme was patriotism, the heroic struggle of the people against the German invaders, which sounded invitingly already in the first years of the war, marked by the tragedy and bitterness of defeat. It was then that A.T.’s poem was born. Tvardovsky “Vasily Terkin”, military prose by A.P. Platonov, patriotic lyrics by A.A. Akhmatova and B.L. Pasternak.

In wartime literature, the "level of truth" was generally much higher than in the pre- and post-war years. This can be said about the prose of K.M. Simonova, V.S. Grossman, A.A. Beck, and about the poetry of M.V. Isakovsky, P.G. Antokolsky, M.I. Aliger, and about the journalism of I.G. Erenburg, A.N. Tolstoy, L.M. Leonova, A.P. Gaidar. Significant works on military themes were created by A.A. Fadeev, B.N. Polev, M.A. Sholokhov, O.F. Berggolts, N.S. Tikhonov.

A major role in mobilizing the people to fight fascism was played by the Sovinformburo, whose team of authors included famous writers, including M. Sholokhov, I. Ehrenburg, K. Simonov, A. Fadeev. The forms of his work were characterized by mobility and accessibility, as evidenced, for example, by the TASS Windows posters. Agitation points, radio reports, and front-line concert brigades made their contribution to the fight against fascism.

A striking event in Soviet musical art was the 7th (Leningrad) symphony of D.D. Shostakovich, dedicated to the defenders of the city on the Neva. The patriotic songs of composers V.P. became widely popular. Solovyov-Sedogo, I.O. Dunaevsky, A.V. Alexandrova, B.A. Mokrousova, M.I. Blanter.

Second half of the 40s - early 50s. The deterioration of the socio-political atmosphere in the country affected the state of culture. People's hopes for a renewed life after the end of the war were not justified. Fearing the spiritual awakening of the people, the government resumed its attack on creative freedom. The functions of ubiquitous regulation and ensuring vigilant all-pervasive control in the field of culture were assigned to the created Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Higher Education of the USSR. The party leadership itself openly interfered in the work of writers, composers, and directors, which led to a decrease in the artistic level of works, the dominance of mediocre examples that embellished reality, and the rise of the so-called “gray classics.”

A grim phenomenon in the post-war years was the renewed trials of “enemies of the people” and the so-called development campaigns. The denunciation campaigns began with a number of party resolutions of 1946-1948. on issues of literature and art: “On the magazines “Zvezda” and “Leningrad””, “On the repertoire of drama theaters and measures to improve it”, “On the opera “The Great Friendship” by V.I. Muradeli”, “About the film “Big Life”. Party criticism of A.A. Zhdanov and his henchmen, “dissent” resulted in a stream of insults addressed to apostates from the “general line” - A.A. Akhmatova, M.M. Zoshchenko, D.D. Shostakovich, S.S. Prokofiev and even officially recognized film directors A.P. Dovzhenko and S.A. Gerasimova. Some were accused of lack of ideas in creativity, formalism, distortion of Soviet reality, currying favor with the West, others - denigration, subjective depiction of history, incorrect placement of accents in the depiction of new life, tendentious assessment of significant events, etc.

The fight against “sycophancy” and “cosmopolitanism” had a sharply negative impact on the development of science. Sociology, cybernetics and genetics, which had moved to the forefront of scientific progress, were declared “the fruits of pseudoscience” hostile to materialism. As a result of the recognition of genetics as a “pseudoscience” at the notorious session of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. IN AND. Lenin (VASKhNIL) in 1948, a promising scientific direction was actually destroyed. The social sciences and humanities became the field of fierce struggle; orthodox dogmas were introduced into linguistics, philosophy, political economy, and history. They strongly encouraged simplistic dogmatic concepts of an apologetic nature.

1.3 Soviet culture 1956-1991

Soviet culture realism artistic postmodernism

Years of the "thaw". Death of I.V. Stalin served as a signal for a gradual softening of the regime and a palliative change in the state-political system. Second half of the 50s - early 60s. marked by Khrushchev's economic reforms (not fully thought out) and the acceleration of the pace of scientific and technological progress. The formalization of the new policy occurred after the 20th Congress of the CPSU, held in February 1956. At it, the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee N.S. Khrushchev delivered a report that shocked the delegates, “On Stalin’s personality cult and its consequences.” The report marked the beginning of fateful changes in the life of Soviet society, an adjustment of the political course, and served as an impetus for the overdue cultural shifts.

A “warming” has begun in the public sphere; It is no coincidence that the Khrushchev era is called the “thaw” (a successful metaphor comes from the title of the story by I. Ehrenburg). Party-ideological control decreased somewhat, the shoots of free-thinking emerged, and symptoms of spiritual revival appeared. The publication did not go unnoticed in 1966-1967. novel by M.A. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita". These changes led to a rapid increase in the creative activity of the intelligentsia.

The Khrushchev period is assessed ambiguously due to serious economic miscalculations and organizational mistakes made by the then party and state leader. And yet, this period became a time of remarkable achievements of Soviet society, the creation of significant works in various fields of culture.

Great success has been achieved in the field of education, which has become an important factor in cultural progress and changes in social life. The continuity of secondary and higher school programs and a unified educational standard were combined with the high prestige of education and intellectual work. By the mid-50s. In the USSR, about 40 million people studied, about 900 universities operated, the total number of students reached 1.5 million people. According to the 1959 population census, 43% of the population had higher, secondary and incomplete secondary education; Thus, over 20 years this figure increased by 76.1%, despite the objective difficulties of the war years. In the mid-60s. Every third resident studied in the USSR in one way or another.

A notable event in the field of education was the school reform, which was carried out in 1958-1964. Its main goal was to turn the school into a reserve for recruiting the working class and the technical intelligentsia. In 1958, the Law “On strengthening the connection between school and life and the further development of the public education system” was adopted. In accordance with this law, compulsory 8-year incomplete secondary education was introduced and the duration of complete secondary education was increased to 11 years. The school had to acquire a polytechnic profile, which was facilitated by compulsory industrial training for high school students. Applicants who had work experience enjoyed advantages when entering universities.

In the 50-60s. There was a leap in the development of Russian science. In a number of main areas, Soviet science occupied leading positions and stimulated technical progress; great discoveries of talented scientists received practical implementation. Outstanding successes have been achieved in space exploration, rocket science and the use of atomic energy. In 1957, the first launch of the Earth satellite was carried out, and in 1961, the first manned flight into space took place. The Soviet Union was the first to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes: the first nuclear power plant began operating in 1954, and the nuclear icebreaker Lenin set sail in 1957.

Never has so much money been invested in science as in these years. Over two decades, costs have increased almost 12 times. It was in the 50-60s. The bulk of the discoveries and inventions were made, for which Soviet scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize in the field of exact and natural sciences. Thus, in the field of physics, 9 Soviet scientists became laureates, including Academician L.D. Landau, who created the theories of superfluidity and superconductivity, academicians A.M. Prokhorov and N.G. Basov, who designed the world's first laser. During this period, there was a significant quantitative and territorial expansion of the network of research institutes, experimental stations and laboratories. In 1957, construction began on the Novosibirsk academic campus, which became one of the country's leading scientific centers in the field of applied mathematics and physics.

The processes that took place in the spiritual life of society were reflected in the literature of those years. The main historical merit of the creative intelligentsia of the second half of the 50s - early 60s. before culture consists in the spiritual and moral elevation of the reader. For the first time in Soviet history, the value of internal personal freedom, the right to sincerity and affirmation of one’s true self was openly declared. The life of people with all the difficulties and troubles, without pompous labor heroism and deliberate pathos, formed the main theme of the best examples of literature, theater, cinema, and painting .

During the “thaw” there was a real “boom” of literary and artistic magazines, among which “New World”, “Youth”, “Our Contemporary”, “Young Guard”, “Foreign Literature” were especially popular. The center of attraction for the democratic intelligentsia was the magazine “New World,” whose editor-in-chief was A.T. Tvardovsky. This magazine is associated with a powerful truth-seeking movement in Soviet literature, its discovery of true humanity.

Certain milestones in the rise of literary life were the stories of V.M. Shukshin, novel by V.D. Dudintsev “Not by Bread Alone”, the stories “Colleagues” and “Star Ticket” by V.P. Aksenova. An event that went beyond the literary framework and deeply influenced the spiritual life of society was the publication in 1962 of a story by A.I. in the magazine “New World”. Solzhenitsyn’s “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” written in the genre of an autobiographical description of the life of a political prisoner in Stalin’s camps.

The years of the “thaw” were the heyday of Soviet poetry. A wealth of genres, a variety of creative individuals, and a high artistic level distinguish the poetic creativity of this period. New names appeared in poetry: A. Voznesensky, E. Yevtushenko, B. Akhmadulina, N. Rubtsov, B. Okudzhava. N.N., who had been silent for a long time, spoke up. Aseev, M.A. Svetlov, N.A. Zabolotsky. As one of the poetic movements, the author's (bardic) song became widespread. Distinguished by its simplicity and natural intonation, it was most often performed to one's own accompaniment (usually a guitar). The topical songs of A. Galich, B. Okudzhava, N. Matveeva, V. Vysotsky, Yu. Vizbor and others were extremely popular, captivating listeners with their genuine author’s sincerity.

Starting from the late 50s, the topic of the Great Patriotic War received a new understanding. It marked a turn towards a moral assessment of events. This approach was manifested in the story of M.A. Sholokhov “The Fate of Man”, in the first part of the trilogy by K.M. Simonov “The Living and the Dead”, in the films of G.N. Chukhrai “Ballad of a Soldier” and M.K. Kalatozov "The Cranes Are Flying" A direction called “trench” literature (or “lieutenant’s prose”) began to take hold, represented by the famous works of Yu.V. Bondareva, G.Ya. Baklanova, V.O. Bogomolov and other talented writers.

The post-Stalin period saw a creative growth in theatrical art. Theaters were actively looking for their own path of development, acquiring their own style and aesthetic position.

In 1956, the Studio of Young Actors was organized in Moscow, which soon grew into the Sovremennik theater studio. Under the leadership of director O.N. Efremov formed a troupe, the core of which was the popular Soviet actors G. Volchek, E. Evstigneev, I. Kvasha, O. Tabakov. The talented writer V.S. constantly wrote plays for Sovremennik. Rozov.

In the same year, G.A. became the chief director of the Leningrad Bolshoi Drama Theater. Tovstonogov. The repertoire searches of the new head of the BDT went along two channels - modern drama and world classics. The theater was close to the psychological dramas of A.M. Volodin and V.S. Rozova. On its stage, L. Makarova, E. Kopelyan, V. Strzhelchik, K. Lavrov, P. Luspekayev, S. Yursky, E. Lebedev, O. Basilashvili played their best roles.

Since 1964, the Moscow Taganka Drama and Comedy Theater has become a place of attraction for theatergoers. The young team under the leadership of Yu.P. Lyubimova declared herself the heir to the traditions of Stanislavsky, Vakhtangov, Meyerhold and in a new way, with amazing temperament, played the plays of W. Shakespeare and B. Brecht, staged the works of J. Reed, D. Samoilov and others. A. Demidova, A. Demidova, and others shone in the “star” company. V. Vysotsky, N. Gubenko, V. Zolotukhin, Z. Slavina, L. Filatov.

However, the “thaw” in the spiritual life of society was not without contradictions. Party ideological control was somewhat weakened, but continued to operate. Relapses of “Zhdanovism” manifested themselves in the public condemnation of V.D.’s novel in 1957. Dudintsev “Not by bread alone” and in the so-called “Pasternak case”. Boris Pasternak, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1958 for his novel Doctor Zhivago, was expelled from the USSR Writers' Union that same year for publishing this novel abroad. Personally N.S. Khrushchev scolded the poet A.A. Voznesensky, prose writer D.A. Granin, sculptor E.I. To the unknown, film director M.M. Khutsiev. The apogee of intolerance was the scandal at the exhibition in the Manege in 1962, when Khrushchev rudely criticized avant-garde artists for repeatedly incriminating formalism and departure from the canons of realistic art.

At the end of the 50s. writers, poets, and publicists of the democratic trend decided to independently publish typewritten journals, including their works in them. This is how Samizdat arose and, in particular, the most interesting of the illegal publications, the magazine “Syntax”, edited by A. Ginzburg. It featured uncensored works by V.P. Nekrasova, V.T. Shalamova, B.Sh. Okudzhava, B.A. Akhmadulina. The arrest of A. Ginzburg in 1960 interrupted the publication of the magazine, but the formation of an opposition movement, which became known as the “dissident” movement, had already taken place.

Period of "stagnation". The end of the 60s - the first half of the 80s. entered the history of the USSR as a time of “stagnation”. During this period, timid attempts were made and then practically nullified to reform the economy of Soviet society, giving it the appearance of a market character (A.N. Kosygin’s reforms). The refusal to carry out even palliative reforms was accompanied by economic stagnation, growing corruption and bureaucracy. The foundations of party-state monopoly remained unshakable. Signs of a protracted general crisis appeared.

The regulation of public forms of social life has increased, control over the media, the sphere of education, the development and teaching of social sciences and the humanities has been tightened. Any attempts to go beyond generally accepted dogmas in history, philosophy, sociology, and political economy were criticized.

The conductor of the strict course of prohibitions and regulation was the ideological apparatus of the CPSU Central Committee, headed by M.A. Suslov. Clashes on the literary and cultural fronts unfolded before the eyes of the entire country and excited public opinion. A.T. Tvardovsky, in his poem “By Right of Memory” (not accepted for publication), bitterly spoke about the authorities’ immoderate desire to “put an end to” the democratic gains of the “thaw”: Which, not put into order, was decided for us by a special congress: In this sleepless memory, Should I put an end to it?

In the first Brezhnev years, the struggle between the legacy of the “thaw” and conservative, reactionary tendencies still continued. A regressive turn in cultural policy came after the Czechoslovak events of 1968. Censorship became tougher and the persecution of intellectual independence intensified. Show trials were held against dissidents: I.A. Brodsky, A.D. Sinyavsky, Yu.M. Daniel, A. Ginzburg. In 1969, A.I. was expelled from the Writers' Union. Solzhenitsyn; later, in 1974, for publishing “The Gulag Archipelago” abroad, he was deprived of Soviet citizenship and deported abroad. In 1970, A.T. was forced to leave the “New World”. Tvardovsky.

However, in general, stagnation still affected culture to a lesser extent than the economy and political sphere. The powerful humanistic-renovationist impulse she received during the years of Khrushchev’s “thaw” continued to nourish bright, extraordinary personalities in literature, theater, cinema, and painting. In the 70-80s. artistic life in the country continued to be very rich.

The concept of “stagnation” is least applicable to literature. In terms of the richness of creative individuals, breadth of themes, and variety of artistic techniques, the literature of this time is comparable to the literature of the 20s. The winners of the Nobel Prize in Literature were M.A. Sholokhov (1965), A.I. Solzhenitsyn (1970), I.A. Brodsky (1987). In general, literature of the 70-80s. developed under the influence of ideas and attitudes that arose during the “thaw”. “Rural”, “military”, “urban” prose has reached a new creative level.

A sign of the times was the rethinking and new coverage of military topics. Epic films about the Patriotic War, memories and memoirs of World War II commanders, famous heroes and veterans, and statesmen acquired an epic scope. “Trench Truth” was presented in the prose of Yu.V. Bondareva, B.L. Vasilyeva, G.Ya. Baklanov, films “The Ascension” by L.E. Shepitko and “Road Check” by A.Yu. Herman. These authors revived the reliability and authenticity of the description of events and characters in the military theme. The “military” novel put its heroes in a heightened situation of moral choice, and in essence turned to contemporaries, encouraging them to solve “inconvenient” questions about conscience, honor, loyalty, human dignity, about responsible actions in “borderline” situations.

Important socio-historical and universal problems were raised by village prose, revealing the role of tradition and continuity, the connection of generations, the originality and specificity of folk life and national character. In most cases, the village served the writers not as a theme, but as a life background against which important events unfolded and difficult human destinies took shape. The works of the “villagers” spoke of the pride and dignity of a man from the people, who, in troubles and humiliations, retained a high order of soul. The tone for this direction was set by F.A. Abramov, V.M. Shukshin, V.G. Rasputin, V.P. Astafiev, B.A. Mozhaev.

Many prose writers tried to understand the reasons for the spiritual crisis that coincided with the time of “stagnation.” Thus, Shukshin more than once addressed the problems of the search for truth by a “simple person” who seems to live a normal life, “like everyone else,” but at the same time is deprived of inner peace, and therefore “wonders.”

Urban prose also reflected acute social and psychological problems. Human dramas here played out against the backdrop of a deformed structure of life, in conditions when an extraordinary person experiences a feeling of internal discord and inexplicable alienation from the people around him (relatives, friends) and public institutions. This theme sounded especially poignant in the deeply sincere prose of Yu.V. Trifonov, as well as in the works of A.G. Bitova, V.S. Makanina, D.A. Granina, L.S. Petrushevskaya, V.A. Pietsukha, V.I. Tokareva.

Drama of the 70s was enriched with acutely conflicting moral and psychological plays by the Siberian writer A.V. Vampilov. His dramas “The Eldest Son”, “Duck Hunt”, “Last Summer in Chulimsk” were included in the repertoire of capital and peripheral theaters, films were made based on them, the main roles in which were played by cinema “stars” O. Dal, E. Leonov, N. Karachentsov and others.

Soviet cinema, closely connected with reflective literature, despite the control, prohibitions and “guiding hand” of the dominant state order, in the 70-80s. reached its peak. E.A. made his best films. Ryazanov, M.A. Zakharov, T.M. Lioznova, G.N. Danelia, N.S. Mikhalkov. Children's cinema and animation developed, embodying the ideas of goodness and philanthropy at a high artistic level. It was difficult for Soviet elite cinema to navigate its way, overcoming bureaucratic indifference and misunderstanding of colleagues. “His central figure is A. A. Tarkovsky, who declared himself as a philosopher and experimental director. His films “Ivan’s Childhood”, “Andrei Rublev”, “Solaris”, “Mirror”, “Stalker”, “Nostalgia”, “ Sacrifice” opened up the possibility of an unconventional philosophical reading of time and man and, in essence, revealed a new film language.

Various trends and phenomena were intertwined in the fine arts of this period. One of the most noticeable was the “severe style”. Its representatives (N.I. Andronov, T.T. Salakhov, P.F. Nikonov and others) were looking for new means of expression, trying to achieve dynamism, laconicism, simplicity, and generalization of images while maintaining their vivid emotionality and poignancy. The paintings they created are characterized by uncompromisingness, severe impartiality, emphasized drama in the depiction of life's ups and downs, as well as a (somewhat exaggerated) romantic glorification of people in “difficult professions.”

An original view of the world, a rejection of templates, and a deep understanding of Russian history distinguish the work of I.S. Glazunov. The basis of his moral and aesthetic ideals is the understanding of art as a feat in the name of the highest spiritual values. The artist’s talent was most fully revealed in the multi-figure large-scale canvases of the 70-80s: “Mystery of the 20th Century”, “Eternal Russia”, “Hymn to the Heroes”. At the suggestion of UNESCO, Glazunov created a picturesque panel “The Contribution of the Peoples of the USSR to World Culture and Civilization.” It adorns the headquarters of this prestigious organization, along with paintings by Picasso and other world-class artists.

A characteristic feature of the cultural process of this period was the formation of two opposing types of culture - official and unofficial. Of course, this opposition is to some extent arbitrary and generated by that time. Taking into account this reservation, one can correctly judge the main contradiction of the heterogeneous Soviet culture: the official type of culture had largely exhausted the possibilities for development, while the unofficial one needed institutional support to expand its impact on public consciousness and the social mental field. This contradiction itself was reflected in all forms of creativity during the period of late Soviet society and consisted, briefly, in the following. The more persistently official culture strove for ideological dominance, the more clearly its creative sterility was revealed and the more openly the progressive intelligentsia and the critically thinking public showed cultural dissent and a desire to become more familiar with artistically minted examples of civil and individual freedom of the individual.

The “stagnant” policy of prohibitions and restrictions gave rise to such a form of spiritual protest as dissidence (from the Latin dissidens - disagreement, contradictory), which can be regarded as a radical manifestation of an unofficial type of culture. The beginning of the dissident movement is associated with the demonstration on December 5, 1965 on Pushkin Square and a collective appeal to the authorities to review the decision of the trial of writers Sinyavsky and Daniel, who were arrested in the same year for publishing their literary works in the West and accused of anti-Soviet activities. The dissident movement was not homogeneous. Writers, scientists, artists, sculptors, declared dissidents by the authorities, agreed, perhaps, on only one thing - the desire to defend their right to dissent, to freedom of creative expression. The main reason that forced many of them to openly protest, and some to go abroad, was an internal disagreement with official doctrinaireism, which denied freedom of creativity. Dissent merged with freethinking. Despite campaigns of condemnation, slander, silence, public and secret restrictions, both publicly demonstrated examples of the individual’s vital and creative independence. Man is doomed to freedom and creativity. This conclusion follows from the personal civic courage of A. Solzhenitsyn and V. Aksenov, from the actions of the heroes of their works, their steadfast citizenship, independence of thinking, and independence of intellect.

The emergence of dissidence was met with hostility by party bodies. In the resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On measures to further increase the political vigilance of Soviet people” (1977), dissidence was defined as a harmful trend that discredited the Soviet political system, therefore its participants were subject to criminal liability. In the 60-70s. Over 7 thousand people were convicted for dissent. Director Yu.P. ended up in exile. Lyubimov, artist M.M. Shemyakin, sculptor E.I. Unknown, musician M.L. Rostropovich, poets I.A. Brodsky and A.A. Galich, writers V.P. Nekrasov, A.I. Solzhenitsyn and other prominent cultural figures. These were representatives of the intellectual elite, whose creativity and civic position were classified by the authorities as “discrediting the Soviet state system.”

In the person of the most radical critics of the ossified party-state system, the dissident movement went beyond the boundaries of cultural dissent and became a form of political opposition, which included “signatories”, “informals”, “human rights activists”, etc. The most prominent figure in the human rights movement was academician A.D. Sakharov.

A characteristic phenomenon of the period of “stagnation” was the underground, or “catacomb culture,” which existed illegally and semi-legally as a counterculture and served as a kind of island of spiritual freedom. In spirit it was somewhat close to dissidence, but had a wider social audience. The advanced groups of the intelligentsia “drifted” to the underground, unable to stand the suffocating atmosphere of the oppressive officialdom, but avoiding a “head-on” collision with the authorities. It was a way of life and thinking of creative individuals, a way of their self-expression. The underground united different people who did not want to be dictated from above what to write about, what kind of painting and music to create. Sometimes works that deviated from the usual aesthetic rules appeared in the underground. The audience was shocked, for example, by the shocking painting of “Mitki”, the marginal prose and dramaturgy of Venedikt Erofeev (“Moscow - Petushki”, “Walpurgis Night, or the Steps of the Commander”),

Adjacent to the underground was a concept of art called “socio art.” It was a kind of artistic dystopia, composed of the fragments of myths of public consciousness generated by the dominant officialdom. Socialist art, clearly represented later by the shocking prose of Viktor Pelevin (“Chapaev and Emptiness”, “Life of Insects”, “Omon-Ra”), is characterized by parodying the stylistics and images of socialist realism.

Rock and roll became a kind of musical accompaniment to underground culture. In the mid-60s. a number of amateur and professional youth groups in Moscow and Leningrad, and then in other cities, began to play rock music. Its main feature was its withdrawal into its own world, which had nothing in common with the myth of developed socialism and the appearance of its historical superiority. Hence the social pointedness of some texts and the shocking performance. The deliberate carelessness of the costumes and the extravagant appearance of the musicians seemed to further emphasize their denial of the “yoke of collectivity” and their reluctance to be “like everyone else.” Encountering opposition from official bodies, rock groups either switched to a semi-legal existence, or, combining the style of early rock music with pop songs, created vocal and instrumental ensembles (VIA) and continued their concert activities. In the 70-80s. genre and style features of Russian rock music have emerged. The emphasis in it was on words, “cocky” texts that excite the minds and feelings of avant-garde youth, and “groovy” improvisations. Its countercultural, socially progressive position was powerfully “voiced” by the group “Alice” (leader - Konstantin Kinchev).

It should be recognized that the main direction (“main stream”) of cultural development of this period was determined not by the “Catacombs,” but by the transformed mass culture. Its most striking expression was the stage, which clearly expressed the personal charm of the Soviet “stars”: Alla Pugacheva, Sofia Rotaru, Joseph Kobzon, Lev Leshchenko, etc. In many ways, the stage took on the mission of shaping aesthetic tastes and partly the educational function of culture. However, irony, mockery, and satirical mockery penetrated the stage, which did not escape the influence of unofficial culture. It was during the years of “stagnation” that the rise of pop satire occurred. Speeches by A.I. Raikina, M.M. Zhvanetsky, G.V. Khazanov and others enjoyed enormous popularity.

Thus, the period of “stagnation” turned out to be a contradictory, transitional time that determined some of the features of the subsequent perestroika. The situation of the split in Soviet culture was becoming more and more obvious, but the depth of the process of delimiting it into ideologically opposed subsystems was not yet fully realized and revealed.

Perestroika and glasnost. In 1985-1991 Attempts were made to radically reform society, which, however, getting out of all control, accelerated the collapse of the USSR, due to the collapse of the party-state monopoly and planned regulation of the economy. The collapse of socialist society was accompanied by the aggravation of social and national conflicts, the loss of influence on the social strata of the dominant type of regulated culture, the decomposition of the ideological system, and the loss of attractiveness of distorted communist values ​​and ideals.

Perestroika, which began in 1985 in the USSR, was conceived by the democratically minded wing of the CPSU Central Committee as a course towards the renewal of society, the “improvement” of socialism, and the purification of it from deformations. Universal human values ​​were declared by the initiator of this process M.S. Gorbachev priority, standing above class and national.

The political, social, and economic processes that began in the country in 1985, however, changed the institutional conditions for the functioning of culture. The policy of glasnost is considered to be the beginning of perestroika in the field of culture. The experience of the real embodiment of freedom of speech in mass socio-political movements, at seething rallies, in emboldened literature and journalism, and an unprecedented newspaper and magazine boom was reflected in the introduction on August 1, 1990 of the new Law “On the Press”, which declared freedom of the media and preventing their censorship.

At the forefront of glasnost were the media, whose role was rapidly increasing. Second half of the 90s. became the time of the highest popularity of newspapers and magazines, especially such as “Moscow News”, “Ogonyok”, “Arguments and Facts” (the newspaper's circulation in 1989 amounted to 30 million copies, which is recorded in the Guinness Book of Records). Journalism came to the fore in the press and on television, playing the role of an indicator of the state of public consciousness. The rulers of the thoughts were the authors of incendiary articles, supporters of democratic reforms: G. Popov, V. Selyunin, I. Klyamkin, V. Tsipko, N. Shmelev and others. Journalism in general can be considered the main distinguishing feature of cultural life during perestroika.

Glasnost, along with the lifting of restrictions on the media, was expressed in the abolition of many prohibitions, as well as decisions to deprive a number of cultural figures who left the country in the 70s of Soviet citizenship. The banned works of A.I. were published. Solzhenitsyn, V.N. Voinovich, V.P. Aksenova, A.A. Zinoviev. The work of emigrant writers I.A. has become the property of Russian literature. Bunina, A.T. Averchenko, M.A. Aldanov, unpublished works of A.P. were published. Platonova, B.L. Pasternak, A.A. Akhmatova, V.S. Grossman, D.A. Granina. Catharsis (spiritual cleansing), which society sought, occurred through discoveries and shocks, in which the publication of “The Gulag Archipelago” by A.I. played a significant role. Solzhenitsyn, “Kolyma Tales” by B.T. Shalamov, “Pit” by A.P. Platonov, the dystopian novel “We” by E.I. Zamyatina.

Against the background of the developing process of glasnost, interest in the events of the Soviet past increased. During the years of perestroika, newspapers and magazines published many publications on historical topics: articles by historians, materials from round tables, previously unknown documents, etc. This time was in many ways a turning point in terms of changing historical self-awareness.

As you know, culture has its own internal development trends. In the second half of the 80s - early 90s. There have been some positive changes in it. In general, cultural life during the period of perestroika and glasnost became much more diverse, complex and at the same time contradictory. The rapidity of ill-conceived changes, inconsistent reforms and distortions in politics predetermined a bizarre combination of creative processes and destructive ones.

Thus, the policy of glasnost had serious costs, first of all, the desire of a number of emotional journalists and political figures from the radical liberal camp to subject to a total denial of everything that happened in the pre-perestroika period, starting from 1917. The real achievements of the USSR were falsified; Insulting metaphors such as “scoop”, “commies”, “red-browns”, etc. came into use. Criminal-like vocabulary was also used in the opposite camp.

Having lost ideological and political levers, the state has lost the ability to keep the situation under control. There was also not enough general civil culture to carry out systemic evolutionary transformations of society, a step-by-step restructuring from the inside, similar to that which was accomplished (with the “light hand” of Deng-Xiaoping) by Chinese society and the state after the liquidation of the Maoist regime, the entire artificial structure of barracks communism.

Over time, the seemingly manageable process of glasnost got out of control and gave rise to information anarchy. The movement itself for glasnost, openness, and freedom of the media increased cultural achievements, but was exaggerated and distorted as a result of the emergence of destructive attitudes towards extra-moral permissiveness, total criticism of Soviet history, apologetics of liberalism, etc. Destructive glasnost acted recklessly with a “revolutionary” quasi-Bolshevik scope (“we will destroy the whole world to its foundations...”).

The underlying negative trends include excessive commercialization and creative exhaustion, and the profanation of a significant array of culture. In conditions of market monopolization, banal foreign cultural products noticeably displaced and modified Russian mass culture, which entailed a sharp decline in the quality of the latter. Soviet film production and film distribution entered a period of protracted crisis, unable to compete with the zombifying American film production that filled cinemas and video centers. Attendance at traditional cultural institutions: theaters, concert halls, and art exhibitions has dropped noticeably. There were signs of a spiritual crisis.

In general, the project of the declared perestroika was a fiasco, turning out to be not only unviable, but also destructive. It was doomed to fail from the start due to at least three major flaws:

This project did not contain a realistic, constructive program for transferring the socialist economy to a market economy during the transition period.

Its ideological basis eclectically combined incompatible doctrinaire-communist, social-democratic, neoliberal values ​​and ideas.

He did not have clear prospects for a systemic evolutionary transformation of the economy, culture, ideology, social structure, or state-political system of a crisis society.

The deepening crisis in the socio-economic life of society had a negative impact on the development of a destabilized culture. The production and economic mechanism, deprived of its former centralization, fell apart. People's daily lives became increasingly deteriorating, and ideological and political contradictions grew. One after another, the Union republics declared their sovereignty.

Economic, financial, legal, organizational and management systems by the beginning of the 90s. were effectively decentralized. The process of “democratization” acquired a spontaneous, uncontrollable character. The idea of ​​“improving” socialism, put forward by the initiators of perestroika, was replaced by ultra-radicals with a demand for a total rejection of socialism, even in its social democratic version in combination with social-partner capitalism. Subsequently, they imposed on Russia and other newly formed states the Western model of liberal-oligarchic capitalism, which in reality turned out to be adventurous-oligarchic.

All these and similar circumstances led to the collapse of the perestroika policy and a widespread crisis, which the August 1991 coup tried unsuccessfully to overcome. In December 1991, the USSR ceased to exist. A number of former Soviet republics formed a new political and economic association - the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

1.4 Culture of Russia in the post-Soviet period

After the Russian Federation became an independent power, its culture began to develop under new conditions. It is characterized by broad pluralism, but lacks spiritual tension, creative productivity, and humanistic fervor. Today, such different layers coexist in it, such as multi-level examples of Western culture, newly acquired values ​​of the Russian diaspora, a newly rethought classical heritage, many values ​​of the former Soviet culture, original innovations and undemanding epigone local kitsch, glamour, relativizing public morality to the limit and destroying traditional aesthetics .

In the projective system of culture, a certain “exemplary” picture of socio-cultural life “for growth” is modeled in the format of postmodernism, which is widespread in the world at present. This is a special type of worldview, aimed at rejecting the dominance of any monological truths and concepts, focused on recognizing any cultural manifestations as equivalent. Postmodernism in its Western version, peculiarly adopted by Russian humanities scholars of the new generation, does not aim to reconcile, much less bring to unity, different values, segments of a heterogeneous culture, but only combines contrasts, combines its various parts and elements based on the principles of pluralism, aesthetic relativism and polystyle “mosaic”.

The prerequisites for the emergence of a postmodern sociocultural situation arose in the West several decades ago. The widespread introduction of the achievements of science and technology into the sphere of production and everyday life has significantly changed the forms of functioning of culture. The spread of multimedia and household radio equipment has entailed fundamental changes in the mechanisms of production, distribution and consumption of artistic values. “Cassette” culture has become uncensored, because selection, replication and consumption are carried out through the apparently free expression of its users. Accordingly, a special type of so-called “home” culture arose, the constituent elements of which, in addition to books, were a video recorder, radio, television, personal computer, and the Internet. Along with the positive features of this phenomenon, there is also a tendency towards increasing spiritual isolation of the individual.

The state of a person of post-Soviet culture, who for the first time in a long time found himself left to himself, can be characterized as a sociocultural and psychological crisis. Many Russians were not prepared for the destruction of their usual picture of the world and the loss of a stable social status. Within civil society, this crisis was expressed in the value disorientation of social strata and the displacement of moral norms. It turned out that the “communal” psychology of people, formed by the Soviet system, is incompatible with Western values ​​and hasty market reforms.

The “omnivorous” kitsch culture has become more active. A deep crisis of former ideals and moral stereotypes, lost spiritual comfort forced the average person to seek solace in common values ​​that seemed simple and understandable. The entertaining and informational functions of banal culture turned out to be more in demand and familiar than the aesthetic delights and problems of the intellectual elite, than the value guidelines and aesthetic desires of high culture. In the 90s Not only was there a break between the catastrophically impoverished social strata and the “highbrow” culture and its “authorized representatives”, but also there was a certain devaluation of the unifying values ​​and attitudes of the traditional “average” culture, the influence of which on the social strata began to weaken. “Westernized pop music” and liberal ideology, having concluded an unspoken alliance, cleared the way for predatory adventurous oligarchic capitalism.

Market relations have made mass culture the main barometer by which one can observe changes in the state of society. The simplification of social relations and the collapse of the hierarchy of values ​​in general have significantly worsened aesthetic tastes. At the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century. vulgarized kitsch associated with primitive advertising (template crafts, aesthetic ersatz), expanded its sphere of influence, became more active, took on new forms, adapting a considerable part of multimedia. The articulation of homegrown templates of “mass” screen culture inevitably led to a new wave of expansion of similar Western, primarily American, models. Having become a monopolist on the art market, the Western film and video entertainment industry began to dictate artistic tastes, especially among young people. Under the current conditions, counteracting the processes of cultural Western globalization and profane kitsch is becoming more flexible and effective. It is increasingly carried out primarily in the form of kemta.

Kamt, as one of the varieties of synthesized elite-mass culture, is popular in form, accessible to wide social strata, and in content, conceptual, semantic art, often resorting to caustic irony and caustic parody (of pseudo-creativity) - a kind of cushioned, neutralized " kitsch". Foreign Russian literature close to camp has been worthily represented in recent decades by the recently deceased emigrant writer Vasily Aksenov. It is also necessary to more actively master and disseminate innovative examples of artistic creativity through improved multimedia technologies, to give way to non-academic genres of art, including trash - a related artistic movement that is a parody of modern forms of pop art and glamor.

Today, the painful transition to the market is accompanied by a reduction in state funding for culture and a decline in the living standards of a significant part of the intelligentsia. The material base of Russian culture was undermined in the 90s; in the last decade there has been a slow recovery, slowed down by the consequences of the global financial and economic crisis. One of the important and complex modern problems is the interaction of culture and market. In many cases, the creation of cultural works is approached as a profit-generating business, as an ordinary ordinary product, or more precisely, as its exaggerated monetary equivalent. Often the desire to obtain the maximum benefit “at any cost” wins, without caring about the quality of the artistic product being created. The uncontrolled commercialization of culture is focused not on the creative individual, but on the “hyper-economic super-marketeer,” playing along with his narrow utilitarian interests.

The consequence of this circumstance was the loss of a number of advanced positions by literature, which played a leading role in Russian (and Soviet) culture in the 19th-20th centuries; the art of literary expression degraded and acquired an unusual diversity and eclecticism of smaller genres and styles. The shelves of bookstores are dominated by empty “pink” and “yellow” fiction, which is characterized by a rejection of spirituality, humanity and stable moral positions.

Postmodernist literature has partly gone into the sphere of formal experimentation or has become a reflection of the momentarily happening, “scattered” consciousness of a person in the post-Soviet era, as evidenced, for example, by the works of some authors of the “new wave”.

And yet the development of artistic culture did not stop. Talented musicians, singers, creative groups are still making themselves known in Russia today, performing on the best stages in Europe and America; some of them use the opportunity to enter into long-term work contracts abroad. Significant representatives of Russian culture include singers D. Hvorostovsky and L. Kazarnovskaya, the Moscow Virtuosi ensemble under the direction of Vl. Spivakov, State Academic Folk Dance Ensemble named after. Igor Moiseev. Innovative searches in dramatic art are still carried out by a galaxy of talented directors: Yu. Lyubimov, M. Zakharov, P. Fomenko, V. Fokin, K. Raikin, R. Viktyuk, V. Gergiev. Leading Russian film directors continue to actively participate in international film festivals, sometimes achieving notable success, as evidenced, for example, by N. Mikhalkov receiving the highest Academy Award “Oscar” in the category “For Best Foreign Language Film” in 1995, for the same the film won the Grand Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival in 1994; awarding an honorary prize at the Venice festival to A. Zvyagintsev’s film “The Return”. “Women’s” prose is in demand among readers (T. Tolstaya, M. Arbatova, L. Ulitskaya).

Determining the paths for further cultural progress has become the subject of heated debate in Russian society. The Russian state has stopped dictating its demands to culture. Its management system is far from what it used to be. However, in the changed conditions, it must still set strategic goals for cultural construction and fulfill sacred responsibilities for the protection of cultural and historical national heritage, providing the necessary financial support for creatively promising areas of development of a multifaceted culture. Government officials cannot help but realize that culture cannot be completely left to business, but it can cooperate fruitfully with it. Support for education, science, concern for the preservation and enhancement of humanistic cultural heritage contribute to the successful solution of pressing economic and social problems, the growth of well-being and national potential, and are of great importance for strengthening the moral and mental health of the peoples living in Russia. Russian culture will have to turn into an organic whole thanks to the formation of a national mentality. This will prevent the growth of separatist tendencies and will contribute to the development of creativity and the successful solution of economic, political and ideological problems.

At the beginning of the third millennium, Russia and its culture again faced a choice of path. The enormous potential and rich heritage it has accumulated in the past constitute an important prerequisite for its revival in the future. However, so far only isolated signs of spiritual and creative uplift have been detected. Solving pressing problems requires time and new priorities, which will be determined by society itself. The Russian intelligentsia must have its say in the humanistic revaluation of values.

Increasing creative exchange and density of communications between the historically interconnected cultures of Russia and Belarus will require new steps on the path of intellectual integration from humanities scholars of the allied countries. It is also necessary to bring closer approaches to solving interstate problems and determining the prospects for the development of two neighboring civilizations. The solution to this problem will be facilitated by consistent steps by the leadership of the Russian Federation, headed by President D.A. Medvedev and Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers V.V. Putin, aimed at further social humanization of Russian society.

List of sources used

1. Drach G.V., Matyash T.P. Culturology. Brief thematic dictionary. - M.: Phoenix, 2001.

Shirshov I.E. Culturology - theory and history of culture: textbook / Shirshov I.E. - Mn.: Ecoperspective, 2010.

Ehrengross B.A. Culturology. Textbook for universities / B.A. Ehrengross, R.G. Apresyan, E. Botvinnik - M.: Onyx, 2007.

Culturology. Textbook / Edited by A.A. Radugina - M., 2001.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Realities of cultural life in the post-Soviet era. Early 90s took place under the sign of the accelerated disintegration of the single culture of the USSR into separate national cultures, which not only rejected the values ​​of the common culture of the USSR, but also each other’s cultural traditions. Such a sharp opposition of different national cultures led to an increase in sociocultural tension, the emergence of military conflicts and subsequently caused the collapse of a single sociocultural space.

But the processes of cultural development are not interrupted by the collapse of state structures and the fall of political regimes. The culture of new Russia is organically connected with all previous periods of the country's history. At the same time, the new political and economic situation could not but affect culture.

Her relationship with the authorities has changed dramatically. The state stopped dictating its demands to culture, and culture lost its guaranteed customer.

The common core of cultural life - the centralized management system and a unified cultural policy - has disappeared. Determining the paths of further cultural development became a matter for society itself and a subject of acute disagreement. The range of searches is extremely wide - from following Western models to an apology for isolationism. The absence of a unifying sociocultural idea is perceived by part of society as a manifestation of the deep crisis in which Russian culture found itself by the end of the 20th century. Others consider cultural pluralism to be the natural norm of a civilized society.

The elimination of ideological barriers created favorable opportunities for the development of spiritual culture. However, the economic crisis experienced by the country and the difficult transition to market relations have increased the danger of the commercialization of culture, the loss of national traits in the course of its further development, the negative impact of the Americanization of certain spheres of culture (primarily musical life and cinema) as a kind of retribution for “introduction to universal human values.” ".

The spiritual sphere is experiencing in the mid-90s. acute crisis. In a difficult transition period, the role of spiritual culture as a treasury of moral guidelines for society increases, while the politicization of culture and cultural figures leads to the implementation of functions unusual for it and deepens the polarization of society. The desire to direct countries towards market development leads to the impossibility of the existence of certain spheres of culture that objectively require state support. The possibility of the so-called “free” development of culture based on the low cultural needs of a fairly wide segment of the population leads to an increase in lack of spirituality, the promotion of violence and, as a consequence, an increase in crime.

At the same time, the division between elite and mass forms of culture, between youth and the older generation continues to deepen. All these processes are unfolding against the backdrop of a rapid and sharp increase in uneven access to the consumption of not only material but cultural goods.

In the sociocultural situation that had developed in Russian society by the mid-90s, a person, as a living system, representing the unity of the physical and spiritual, natural and socio-cultural, hereditary and acquired during life, can no longer develop normally.

Indeed, as market relations strengthen, most people become increasingly alienated from the values ​​of their national culture. And this is a completely natural trend for the type of society that is being created in Russia at the end of the 20th century. All this, which has become a reality over the past decade, is bringing society to the limit of accumulation of explosive social energy.

In a word, the modern period of development of national culture can be designated as transitional. For the second time in a century, a real cultural revolution took place in Russia. In modern Russian culture, numerous and very contradictory trends are manifested. But they can, relatively speaking, be combined into two groups.

The first trend: destructive, crisis, promoting the complete subordination of Russian culture to the standards of Western civilization.

The second trend: progressive, fueled by the ideas of patriotism, collectivism, social justice, traditionally understood and professed by the peoples of Russia.

The struggle between these inherently antagonistic tendencies will apparently determine the main direction of development of Russian culture in the third millennium.

Russian culture and the “postmodern” era. Modern cultural creation processes taking place in Russia are an inseparable part of the global development of the late 20th - early 21st centuries, the transition from industrial to post-industrial society, from “modern” to “postmodern”.

The spiritual state of Western culture and art of our time is called postmodernism. It was born from the tragic realization of the impossibility of restoring universal harmony through the exaltation of the individual. The main value of "postmodernism" is "radical plurality". According to the German researcher of problems of modern culture W. Welsh, this multiplicity is not a synthesis, but an eclectic combination of heterogeneous elements, blurring the lines between the creator of values ​​and their consumer, between the center and the periphery, turning values ​​into anti-symbols through the loss of their deep connections with the spiritual component of culture .

Thus, in the world of postmodernism, a dehierarchization of culture occurs, making it impossible to establish a new system of values. Because of this, modern man is doomed to remain in a state of spiritual amorphism. He is able to survey everything, but nothing can shape him from within. Therefore, external forms of restriction of people who in every possible way strive to strengthen the Western world through fashion, public opinion, standardization of life, increasing its comfort, etc., become so necessary.

For the same reasons, the media began to occupy the first place in culture. They were even given the name "fourth force", meaning the other three - legislative, executive and judicial.

In modern Russian culture, incompatible values ​​and orientations are strangely combined: collectivism, conciliarity and individualism, selfishness, deliberate politicization and demonstrative apoliticality, statehood and anarchy, etc. Indeed, today such not only unrelated, but mutually exclusive phenomena as the newly acquired cultural values ​​of the Russian diaspora, the newly rethought classical heritage, and the values ​​of official Soviet culture coexist as if on equal terms.

This is precisely how a general picture of the cultural life of Russia emerges, characteristic of postmodernism, widespread in the world towards the end of our century. This is a special type of worldview, aimed at the rejection of all norms and traditions, the establishment of any truths, focused on unbridled pluralism, recognition of any cultural manifestations as equivalent. But postmodernism is not able to reconcile the irreconcilable, since it does not put forward fruitful ideas for this; it only combines contrasts as the source material for further cultural and historical creativity.

In difficult historical and natural conditions, Russia survived, created its own original culture, fertilized by the influence of both the West and the East, and, in turn, enriched other cultures with its influence. Modern national culture faces a difficult task - to develop its strategic course for the future in a rapidly changing world. Solving this global problem is extremely difficult, since it comes down to the need to understand the deep contradictions inherent in our culture throughout its historical development.

Our culture may well provide an answer to the challenges of the modern world. But for this it is necessary to move to such forms of its self-awareness that would cease to reproduce the same mechanisms of irreconcilable struggle, harsh confrontation, and the absence of a “middle”. It is absolutely necessary to move away from thinking that is oriented towards maximalism, a radical revolution and the reorganization of everything and everyone in the shortest possible time.

Modern models of development of multinational culture in Russia. The troubled times that Russian culture is now experiencing is not a new phenomenon, but a constantly recurring one, and culture has always found one or another answer to the challenges of the time and continued to develop. The whole world found itself at a crossroads at the turn of the 21st century; we are talking about a change in the very type of culture that was formed within Western civilization over the past several centuries.

The revival of culture is the most important condition for the renewal of our society. Determining the paths for further cultural development became the subject of heated debate in society, because the state stopped dictating its demands to culture, the centralized management system and a unified cultural policy disappeared.

One of the existing points of view is that the state should not interfere in the affairs of culture, since this is fraught with the establishment of a new dictatorship over culture, and culture itself will find the means for its survival.

Another point of view seems more reasonable, the essence of which is that, ensuring freedom of culture and the right to cultural identity, the state takes upon itself the development of strategic tasks of cultural construction and responsibilities for the protection of cultural and historical national heritage, the necessary financial support of cultural values.

The state must realize that culture cannot be left to business; its support, including education and science, is of great importance for maintaining the moral and mental health of the nation. The crisis of spirituality causes severe mental discomfort in many people, since the mechanism of identification with superpersonal values ​​is seriously damaged. Without this mechanism, not a single culture exists, and in modern Russia all super-personal values ​​have become questionable.

Despite all the contradictory characteristics of national culture, society cannot allow separation from its cultural heritage. A disintegrating culture is little adapted to transformation, because the impulse for creative change comes from values, which are cultural categories. Only an integrated and strong national culture can relatively easily adapt new goals to its values ​​and master new patterns of behavior.

In this regard, in modern Russia, three models for the development of multinational culture seem possible:

the victory of cultural and political conservatism, an attempt to stabilize the situation based on ideas about the identity of Russia and its special path in history. In this case:

there is a return to the nationalization of culture,

automatic support is provided for cultural heritage, traditional forms of creativity,

foreign influence on culture is limited,

Russian artistic classics remain an object of cult, and aesthetic innovations are viewed with suspicion.

By its nature, this model is short-lived and inevitably leads to a new crisis, but in Russian conditions it can last quite a long time;

integration of Russia under external influence into the world system of economy and culture and its transformation into a “province” in relation to global centers. When approving this model:

there is a “McDonaldization” of domestic culture,

the cultural life of society is stabilized on the basis of commercial self-regulation.

The key problem is the preservation of the original national culture, its international influence and the integration of cultural heritage into the life of society;

integration of Russia into the system of universal human culture as an equal participant in world artistic processes. To implement this model, it is necessary to fully utilize cultural potential, radically reorient state cultural policy, ensure accelerated development of the domestic cultural industry within the country, and fully encourage the inclusion of creative workers in global networks of artistic production and communication. It is this model that deserves strong support, because it is focused on culture, which should actively influence politics, the economy, and spiritual life.

Thus, the culture of Russia in modern times is a very complex and ambiguous phenomenon. On the one hand, it has always determined the trends of the sociocultural process in the world, on the other hand, it has been influenced by Western culture in the broad sense of the word.

Domestic culture in modern times has gone through several most significant stages: pre-Soviet (before 1917); Soviet (before 1985) and modern stage of democratic transformations. At all these stages, the large role of the state in the development of culture, the relative passivity of the population, and the large gap between the culture of the masses and its most prominent representatives were revealed.

Having embarked on the path of capitalist development later than the leading Western countries, Russia in the post-reform years managed to achieve a lot in the field of economics. In spiritual terms, Russia at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. gave world culture a number of outstanding achievements. The contradictory nature of cultural development during the Soviet period led to the accumulation of numerous contradictions, the resolution of which has not yet been completed.

The direction of cultural development in the future will be determined by many factors, primarily liberation from external dependence, taking into account the uniqueness of Russia and the experience of its historical development. At the turn of the millennium, Russia again found itself at a crossroads. But no matter what its fate may be, Russian culture remains the main wealth of the country and the guarantee of the unity of the nation.

At the turn of the millennium, humanity is challenged in the form of global problems, in the face of which it will have to act as a single entity making informed and coordinated decisions. In this creation of universal human unity, a decisive role belongs to the mutually enriching dialogue of different cultures, the world cultural process.

Russian culture has long played an important role in this process. Russia has a special civilizing and organizing function in the global sociocultural space. Russian culture has proven its viability and confirmed that the development of democracy and moral purification are impossible without preserving and enhancing the accumulated cultural potential. Russia is a country of great literature and art, bold science and a recognized education system, ideal aspirations for universal human values, and cannot but be one of the most active creators of the culture of the world.