Prohibitions in culture. "Cultural taboos

Why is the Ukrainian glossy press scolding Ani Lorak and Joseph Kobzon? Why did the Lviv Book Fair abandon Russian publishing houses and why are Ukrainian writers unhappy with this? Why won’t there be an official Year of Culture between Poland and England in Russia, but this does not cancel the cooperation of people in theatre, cinema, literature and music? Can the Ukrainian ban on Russian goods apply to books and music CDs? Breaking agreements in the field of culture - abandonment of politics or art? Why contemporary artist can't help but get involved in politics? Do they understand Russian artists, for what reasons may they not be invited abroad?

Marek Radziwon, director of the Polish cultural center; Oleg Dorman, documentary director, author of the film "Interlinear"; Alexander Ilichevsky, writer; Alexandra Koval, director of the Lviv Book Forum; Yuri Volodarsky, literary critic(Kyiv); Marianna Kiyanovskaya, poet, translator (Lvov).

In video and radio broadcast on Sunday and Monday at 18 o'clock, in radio repeat - on Wednesday at 22. The program is hosted by Elena Fanailova

Elena Fanailova: About culture and politics against the backdrop of military operations in eastern Ukraine, about the challenges of the time, about what a person of culture should do in the proposed circumstances.

At our table today - Oleg Dorman, documentary film director, author famous film"Interlinear"; Marek Radziwon, director of the Polish Cultural Center. Will be with us on Skype Alexander Ilichevsky, writer. He is now in Israel.

Let's start with a story about the Lviv Book Forum. Lviv publishers refused to accept Russian publishers this year, and this caused a big scandal in the Ukrainian cultural world. Poland refuses to hold the Year of Culture in Russia. It became known that England is also refusing state support for its cultural programs with Russia. Not to mention the fact that Latvia and Lithuania banned famous Russian pop singers – Kobzon, Valeria and Gazmanov – from entering their territory for their public position on Crimea and Ukraine in general. And Ukrainian glossy magazines On the contrary, they criticize their collaborators, for example, singer Ani Lorak, because she comes to Moscow to receive some kind of awards. A controversial and important tangle of questions.

How is cultural management involved in the current situation and what should people of culture feel and do in these circumstances?

I recorded Alexandru Koval, director of the Lviv Book Fair.

Alexandra Koval: Members of the public initiative “Economic Boycott”, which has been operating in Lviv since the Euromaidan, came to us with a proposal, when the guys began to boycott goods produced by members of the Party of Regions. They believe that people can vote against something without buying some goods and causing damage to producers, and by buying Russian books, we are financing the aggressor state that Russia is now acting in relation to Ukraine.

At first I did not agree with this position, because it is very far away - books, the economy, cartridges that are bought with these taxes... But, after thinking for a while, after consulting, we still decided not to invite Russian publishers, because the war, and in during military operations it cannot be otherwise. We must wait, the aggression will end, and then we will see what can be brought back. But still, we, together with the boycott committee, decided that it would be wrong to deprive people of those books to which they are accustomed, those Russian books that they love, and especially those analogues that do not yet exist in Ukraine, that have not been translated into Ukrainian language. Therefore, there will be no publishers, but there will be books and writers.

Elena Fanailova: How is this technically possible if publishers do not accompany their writers?

Alexandra Koval: Some funds will get involved. For example, Lyudmila Ulitskaya comes to us with the assistance of one Russian fund. Vladimir Voinovich is invited by his publishing house. And perhaps Ukrainian bookselling companies or branches of Russian publishing houses will invite Russian writers. By the way, Russian publishing houses first appeared in Russia back in 2009 at the collective stand of Russia, and before that they did not exist. And, in fact, there were no publishing houses at the stand itself, books were presented there, and the books were presented by the organizer of the stand, the OGI publishing house, with which we will continue to have, I hope, continued a good relationship, friendly, and in the future they will come. The main thing for us now is not to find enemies that do not exist, not to create these enemies for ourselves in our communication environment. We have a common cause, and we must go through all these trials that have now befallen us calmly and with dignity.

Elena Fanailova: Was there anyone among the Russian writers whom you would like to invite who would refuse to come to you?

Alexandra Koval: No, there weren't any.

Elena Fanailova: If we talk about the broader field in which this war situation is forced to place people of culture, it has now become known that Poland has refused to hold the Year of Culture in Russia for the same reasons that you are closing the Lviv for Russian publishing houses book fair: Until hostilities end. What do you think of this Polish decision? How parallel is it to your decision? Do you understand the Poles in this sense?

Alexandra Koval: Yes, I understand their decision, it is purely political. In Poland there is also a discussion about this; many people think that they should use any opportunity, any means to convey their position and discuss. But for some reason it seems to me that the circumstances now are such that the discussion is not working out. We say ours, the Russians say theirs, but we don’t hear each other. We observed this at the recent Russia-Ukraine Congress, which was organized by the Khodorkovsky Foundation. It seems that everyone agrees that it is necessary to stop the escalation of tensions, but for some reason there was no common platform on what basis should we further build our understanding. So it seemed to me.

Elena Fanailova: Leading European editors of liberal newspapers also appealed to the European Union that its position should be much tougher towards Russia now. In particular, Adam Michnik, Chief Editor newspaper “Gazeta Wyborcza”, was one of the main defendants in this appeal.

Marek Radziwon: I would like to talk about the Year of Russia and Poland and Poland in Russia, and not about the war in Ukraine. Already several months ago, after the Russian military appeared in Crimea, in early March, it was clear that the Year of Poland in Russia would not have any official “cap”, that we would avoid official meetings at high level. That, most likely, the opening will not be solemn, there will be no ministers and prime ministers...

Elena Fanailova: Let me clarify, this is the level of the Lavrov-Sikorsky negotiations.

Marek Radziwon: Yes, these are negotiations between the ministers of foreign affairs and two ministers of culture, Russian and Polish. The decision to cancel the Year of Poland in Russia is, on the one hand, a political decision, of course. But we must be aware, I always emphasize this and I also repeat this to myself, that in fact we are not abolishing cultural ties. We are not able to cancel them, firstly. Secondly, no one wants to cancel cultural ties, but we are canceling official year Poland in Russia.

As for decisions at the political level, as for ministers, as for some government agreements. Over the past few days in Moscow, both from friends and from Moscow journalists, I have heard the following question: how can this be, we will not have any connections, there will be no Polish cinema, we will not be able to read Polish books, or you will not publish Polish books. Nothing like that!

Elena Fanailova: Or, for example, there will be no next visit of your wonderful directors to the next Golden Mask.

Marek Radziwon: Yes. So it seems to me that it is very important to remind ourselves that we are canceling the Year, because it would be some kind of superficial scenography that would cover up the problems that exist, very serious problems. And we would try to create an artificial scenography behind which we would hide and remain silent about really very complex topics. Here, disagreements related to the war with Ukraine, the occupation of Crimea, disagreements arise at the most basic level, which relate to elementary concepts and values. Therefore, we are canceling this official Year.

Elena Fanailova : Oleg, comment on this situation. I think that there is culture, like a living body, and there is a toolkit. In particular, we are now, it seems to me, talking about more careful use of tools. Are boycotts and statements by people of culture an important way to appeal to public opinion?

Oleg Dorman : A patient comes to the doctor, puts the results of his research in front of him and waits for an answer. The doctor looks at him for a long time and wrinkles his forehead. The patient asks him a question: “Doctor, will I live?” The doctor replies: “What’s the point?”

What I mean is that I, as this patient, would really like to hear the simplest answer to your question. He's gone. It seems to me that all decisions are bad, but, as often happens in the most important questions of life, there is no answer for everyone, but for everyone in particular there is still an answer. Let’s say I won’t go to a company that I don’t like, and I won’t invite people to my house that I don’t like. There may be some compelling circumstances, but if they are not there, I will not call. Why argue here?! Some people will call unpleasant people, but others won’t.

Elena Fanailova : For higher purposes, for example.

Oleg Dorman : I don’t know what will guide each specific person, individual person. I wonder why this is all getting heated, this controversy around boycotts. Because in fact, latently we are solving one of the most important existential questions human life. Each of us is born ourselves. And gradually we discover ourselves as members of different communities - a community of family, a community of friends, groups in kindergarten. Then it turns out that we are citizens of one country or another. We perform countless other roles simultaneously. Which of these roles should one be guided in one or another life situation? Should I think, for example, as a citizen or as a father? As a father or as a writer, faithful to some high spiritual ideals? As a writer or as a friend? I believe that these questions do not and cannot have a general answer. It’s not for nothing that a wiser man than me, however, said in German that “only he is worthy of happiness and freedom who goes to battle for them every day.” Apparently, he meant that it was impossible to solve the issue of freedom once and for all, let alone happiness. This is the constant art of living and war. This is what I’m trying to explain why the boycott issue is becoming so heated.

The question of good and evil is about your responsibility. I am responsible for what the government of my country does. This is very difficult question. Let's say I think that, yes, I answer. This is very unpleasant for me now, but I think that, yes, I answer. Does the Polish government, for example, consider that I, a Russian citizen, am responsible for the actions of my country? Apparently he does. I agree with them. I think that there are many people, honest, courageous and decent people, who do not agree to bear such responsibility. It was not I who annexed Crimea. I can understand that they are right. I simply cannot, in my place, with my heart, agree with them.

Elena Fanailova : If you were subjected to a boycott, what would your reaction be?

Oleg Dorman : “No time for mushrooms, Vasily Ivanovich,” I would say, quoting from another joke. What festivals! This is a question as old as time.

Elena Fanailova : Sasha is in a war zone in Tel Aviv. The last program was with the participation of Volodya Rafeenko, a writer from Donetsk who traveled to Kyiv. He said that the most a big problem- think. When shells are exploding under your windows, when you hear shots, the biggest problem is maintaining your mind and critical attitude to what is happening.

Alexander, can you tell us anything about your challenges?

Alexander Ilichevsky : There is absolutely no need to say that some cultural contacts with Hamas have been disrupted and there is absolutely no reason to regret this.

I would comment on what Oleg said, what I heard about the boycott. Without a doubt, this is a situation in which nothing can be done. Without a doubt, you are responsible for what happens in your country, how it behaves in relation to other countries. It seems to me, however, in spite of everything, people of culture should leave for each other on both sides the possibility of dialogue and the opportunity to somehow sow peace, to fight with the help of some kind of cultural meaning with what's happening.

I remember the 60s, the dissident movement, when there were illegal contacts with the West. With all the civic responsibility of the same Brodsky, I am sure that he did not abdicate responsibility for the actions of the USSR. He always emphasized his citizenship. However, he was open to the world. We, too, must be open to the world and treat with understanding all kinds of official tensions between our countries.

Elena Fanailova : If you were personally invited to some literary festival in Berlin, in France, and then - thank you, writer Ilichevsky, you, as a person responsible for the policies of President Putin... we don’t need you until the war is over. What is your gut reaction?

Alexander Ilichevsky : That would be a deep regret. There's nothing you can do about it.

Elena Fanailova : Back in 2008, one very respected person from the world of St. Petersburg uncensored literature, famous critic, a participant in many literary juries, said (and this was the Russian-Georgian war): “Bye the civilized world, bye European world If Russia is not satisfied with boycotts in all areas, including in cultural areas, Russia, unfortunately, will not be able to truly change. Because we cannot ensure that civil society controls its government." There is also such a radical point of view. I am not saying that it is the only correct one. But I am saying that boycotts still look like political tools. And to refuse a person culture is that he can have his own position and a rather tough one, which, it seems to me, is completely wrong.

I sometimes hear the opinion that a person of culture should neither engage in politics nor be interested in politics. This distorts him as an artist. It harms creativity, it harms personality. I don't agree with this. What do you think about this?

Marek Radziwon : I don’t agree with this either. It seems to me that this point of view has, I would even say, a misunderstanding of what both politics and culture are. We have become accustomed in our part of Europe to the fact over the last 50-60 years, and maybe since 1917, that politics is a dirty business, that you can’t meddle in it decent people that we cannot influence anything. I just believe that politics is not only about presidential elections, which can be falsified or can be held fairly. Politics is my daily behavior in my building. This is the election of a person who in our area is engaged in cleaning or something like that in our house, in our entrance. We decide our issues through fair voting at such a basic level. And then the same thing happens, in fact - at the level of the city, country, in some international relations. There is a certain escapism in this, an attempt to get away from part of our daily life, to go into some kind of internal emigration and say - this is not mine, I don’t want to participate in this. But very often it happens that if we say that we are not interested in politics, we are far from politics, unfortunately, then politics begins to be interested in us. This is much worse.

Elena Fanailova : The two main poets in my life are Czeslaw Milosz and Joseph Brodsky. These are people who were still interested in politics. They were included in it - Milosz as one of the heroes of World War II, an underground worker in Warsaw, then as a diplomat and emigrant, and Brodsky as a political prisoner, then also an emigrant who was interested in politics until the end of his days. It seems to me that this is such discrimination even against people of culture - you are like weak-minded, you don’t need to be interested in politics.

Oleg Dorman : I continue my theme involuntarily - about the impossibility of separating different roles. Politics is separated from art, art is separated from morality, morality is separated from science, science is separated from physics, physics is separated from chemistry only in a person’s head.

What's really happening? I would sadly, a little grotesquely, but at least demonstrate it with a convincing example. They don’t want to see you in some country talented singer, despite all his talent. Can he take his talent, wrap it in tissue paper, put it in a velvet box and send it there without himself, that is, can he separate his talent from himself? No. And they can't. It's impossible to separate it. What then to say?

Elena Fanailova : Some people want this separation. Such complaints about people of culture - don’t get involved in politics.

Oleg Dorman : I would not like to hear from them how they are able to separate politics and culture. As a polemical point, I would even say that politics is, in the end, what culture becomes or, alas, does not become. Because with political point view, which we can assume for a second, the meaning of writing and reading, especially books, listening to music and looking at beautiful works painting is that a person becomes better, he becomes different and behaves like a human being. And these concepts of humanity are developed for us by culture, or what we call culture. In that sense, it seems to me that it does not matter at all how educated a person is. What matters is how enlightened he is. Sometimes a single book you read enlightens you, sometimes just a mother’s lullaby or a grandmother’s fairy tale. But ultimately, if there is any final score here, the real result of the old wives' tale is that the granddaughters will not annex Crimea.

Elena Fanailova : Sasha, are you interested in politics? How do you see yourself as an artist in this?

Alexander Ilichevsky : When I was 20 years old, I was a completely apolitical comrade. At this age, I came across some kind of extensive interview with Joseph Brodsky, where literally the entire page of the newspaper was devoted to Brodsky’s reasoning about the future geopolitical situation in the world. All his reasoning boiled down to the fact that China will swallow us all up. I read all this and said in my heart: “How can he be interested in politics?” To which my then friend said to me: “Stop it! This is still broadening your horizons.” It finally became clear to me that it was impossible to escape politics, precisely after reading Milos. He has a poem from 1944 where he talks about what hell is. Hell is where you go when you step behind the fence. We must leave our hedge. This is true. Because the entire civilization was created with the help of words and speeches, with the help of words and communications. Culture and verbal creativity– this is a kind of co-creation with what creates civilization and so on. If you seriously engage in literature, there is no escape from politics.

Elena Fanailova : I offer a remark Yuri Volodarsky. He is a well-known literary critic in Kyiv, one of the editors of the magazine "Sho". He was one of the opponents of this boycott. I asked him if he had changed his attitude towards this, if it had become more difficult to perceive.

Yuri Volodarsky : No, I don't think anything has become more complicated. Rather, it has become simpler. Because some circumstances became known. And due to these circumstances, it seems to me that we can say that this decision was made under quite strong pressure. This campaign of boycott of all Russian goods reached the Lviv Forum in such a stupid wave that covered good, innocent people. It seems to me that the forum as such, represented by the forum president Alexandra Koval, did not want to do this at all. He is rather forced to do it. It turned out that the forum found itself hostage to the situation.

I still think this decision is wrong. In general, the decision to boycott Russian books is simply stupid. Because a book is a little different. These are not canned goods, these are not products of light or heavy industry. The money that the book brings into the Russian budget, I think, is tiny compared to the reputational losses that the forum received as a result. It turns out so absurd. For example, books by such people, who are very difficult to blame for a negative attitude towards Ukraine, may not be sold on the forum or may only be sold with stickers with the Russian tricolor. I don’t think that Vladimir Sorokin or Lev Rubinstein will be happy with this decision. IN best case scenario They will understand and just remain silent.

You can continue this series. This situation is not only with books. You can boycott, for example, discs Russian performers– Andrei Makarevich, Yuri Shevchuk, people who have provided and are providing Ukraine with all possible support, oppose the Putin regime. To cut one size fits all in this situation is absolutely wrong.

Elena Fanailova : I would pose the question more broadly. The situation that has now developed in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict forces people of culture, one way or another, to react. It is impossible to ignore the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. It’s also quite difficult not to take sides. Is there any universal tactics for the behavior of a person of culture and a manager of culture?

Yuri Volodarsky : The fact of the matter is that there is no universal tactics here and there cannot be. An attempt to develop such a universal tactic leads to fatal simplifications, as in the case of the boycott of Russian publishing houses. Perhaps you just need to resist stupidity. If something stupid comes out, then we need to talk about it. Here is a boycott of Russian books, labeling of Russian books, talk about the need to license Russian books, they need to put quotas on them now. Okay, okay, for God's sake. Let's see exactly how to do this, what kind of discrimination who will be subject to. It’s one thing to limit the access of cheap consumer goods to Ukraine, but another thing is if they stop getting into Ukraine good books, good literature of the most varied kind, the analogues of which Ukrainian publishers do not provide. It turns out absurd. We are cutting off both Russian-speaking and Ukrainian-speaking readers.

If we talk about my work, I can say that probably 95% of books are translated (I’m talking about fiction) from English, French, Italian, German and God knows what else, there are no corresponding Ukrainian translations. They don't exist for obvious reasons. Therefore, cutting off access to Russian books or limiting access to good Russian books, it seems to me, is wrong.

Elena Fanailova : The main thing is the fatal simplifications, Volodarsky said, to which the cultural field is inevitably subjected. It is eroded when cultural managers are forced to make such decisions. Are these simplifications inevitable? At this moment, should we sacrifice complexity because the situation of war generally simplifies our lives?

Oleg Dorman : I don’t know the general answer. Each time it’s different. I don't think anything can be simplified. Apparently, everything is only becoming more and more difficult.

Marek Radziwon : But it seems to me that we are able to distinguish officialdom, all sorts of international agreements, performances in some big concerts of officials from real, personal, each individual participation in real culture, in the one that each of us needs. It seems to me that we are canceling the official event, canceling this official cap, but at the same time I am ready now to name several dozen, several hundred people of Russian culture whom I would like to see in Warsaw, whom I hope we will invite to Warsaw in any case. It seems to me that anyone consciously interested in culture in general certainly understands perfectly well this difference between the president’s confidants and people who will never perform in large halls here, although they are also very talented. The further away from any state officialdom, the better for culture in a certain sense. I am sure that many Poles, people from my environment, perfectly understand this difference and know how to understand it. In Poland, we can also name examples, for example, documentary film festivals where Russian films are shown; Russian cinema is not what official Russian institutions offer us, but what Polish selectors themselves find through their connections.

Elena Fanailova : What makes this choice different? What does the official channel offer and what are you looking for?

Marek Radziwon : It seems to me that this is obvious. I will not name specific names. But we know the list of those people of culture, those directors and Russian musicians, which we see in London, Berlin and Munich when we organize official events in official cross-years. At the same time, I am ready to name several names of Russian writers whose books we publish in Poland, for whom it is not easy to get support and publish their book in Russia.

Elena Fanailova : I don’t think these are purely political reasons. I think, we're talking about about that guy cultural work, which is carried out by these writers, directors, musicians. Surely, the Polish side in Russian culture is interested in interest in social practice, To social life people, to the real problems that exist, and not at all to the image of a great Russia?

Marek Radziwon : Yes, I would even say that there is some shortcoming, some omission in our Polish perception of Russia. Most Poles do not speak Russian, do not know Moscow, do not know Russia, do not know the local cultural environment. They receive the information that we receive in the Polish media. Sometimes not everyone understands that life here is very interesting and vibrant, that there are different informal groups, There is various works cultures that do not reach the average Pole.

Elena Fanailova : I'm afraid that they don't even reach the average Russian.

Marek Radziwon : May be. But I believe that now our main role, I would not want to overestimate it, of course, but our main task now is to establish connections with NGOs, with unofficial platforms, with theaters, with playwrights and with directors who do not enjoy government support, who need to survive It's pretty hard here. I am sure that their works speak about modern Russia much more, much more interesting than what we can get in official release in state cinemas.

Elena Fanailova : Sasha, it seems to me that the topic of simplicity and complexity is one of your main and favorite ones. Do you personally not simplify yourself when responding to the political challenges of the time?

Alexander Ilichevsky : I think that this is not a simplification, but a choice of a new direction. I don't think that internal movement is associated with any diminishment of the complexity that we are used to dealing with. For me, this is all quite painful in the sense that I am used to perceiving modern culture with more transparent boundaries than before. Now you can write almost anywhere in the world in your own language. If there were some difficulties before, now it is very flexible. A situation of war, a situation of confrontation immediately infringes on you in this cultural space. All the boundaries that were previously permeable to you become tougher. You feel disadvantaged and forced to change direction. So I am in a state of not so much bewilderment, but a point of existential choice. This is a pretty serious matter.

Elena Fanailova : I suggest watching an interview with Marianna Kiyanovskaya, poet, translator, important Western Ukrainian intellectual, who was a strong opponent of this boycott. She has her own arguments. We started by asking whether she had changed her mind. What is important is where she talks about the symbolic role of Russian literature for Ukraine.

Marianna Kiyanovskaya : Firstly, I would like to clarify that my first and harshest reaction primarily concerned the decision of our Ukrainian boycott committee. It was some kind of decision that took Alexandra Koval, the president of the publishers' forum, by surprise. This, in my opinion, is a significant clarification. Because some compromise decisions were made later, after speeches by several people who strongly protested against the boycott committee’s decision to boycott the Russian book as a product. Then several decisions were made. Not only has the publishers’ forum come up with an official position, but a legislative decision has already been made on quotas for Russian books on the Ukrainian market.

Of course, I don't change my views. I must say that my main message, which was not heard by almost everyone, concerns the fact that the book is not exactly a product. I immediately tried to say that a book cannot become hostage to the politics of war and other things, because a book is a completely different type of product. In addition to the actual commodity value, it has a very great symbolic value.

Elena Fanailova : For Ukrainian readers, does Russian literature still remain of great symbolic value?

Marianna Kiyanovskaya : I belong to the circle for which it remains. I know that many have now reconsidered their positions, which relate, among other things, to attitudes towards Russian society in general, and to the positions of many intellectuals. The mood has become very radicalized. If we talk about me personally, I will always remain on the position that the humanities space, the book, is cosmopolitan, especially during globalization. The worst and most dangerous thing in these conversations about the restriction of Russian books on the Ukrainian market, about the ban, etc. is the aftertaste, the aftertaste. In a few years, the nuances of these discussions, these conversations will disappear. Nobody will remember them. They will simply remember the very fact of the ban, the establishment of restrictions. They will remember the word "boycott".

In principle, a very terrible thing is cultural nostalgia. Hitler at one time rose from cultural nostalgia and was able to establish his propaganda through the nostalgic part of the population. Putin is now building a lot on cultural nostalgia. Nostalgia, among other things, includes the desire for some kind of revenge. In these games around a Russian-language book, around a book printed in Russia, I see a lot of danger precisely in the fact that this could at some point become a pretext for serious revanchist sentiments.

I emphasize that I am an absolutely Ukrainian-speaking person. I am an uncompromising person in my views. But I believe that in this situation the issue of lifting all bans on Russian books that do not carry agitation, anti-Ukrainian propaganda is important; Ukrainian intellectuals need to support this possibility of a Russian-language book. Because prohibitions of this kind are totalitarian in nature.

Elena Fanailova : Kiyanovskaya puts the question far ahead. She talks about the revanchism of Ukrainian society, that this ban is one of the usual mechanisms of totalitarianism. And for Ukrainians to now ban a Russian book would mean returning to their grievances against Russia, or more precisely, against a large empire that once suppressed peoples. It seems to me that this is an important thing, but her reasoning is very much ahead of the situation of a specific war in which Ukraine now finds itself.

Marek Radziwan : I do not undertake and have no right to comment on the point of view of Ukrainian friends simply because after 5 years of living in Moscow I am not very well versed in Moscow and Russian situation(laugh). Here you have to be more modest, and unfortunately, I don’t understand much about Ukrainian.

The fact that this point of view really goes far ahead seems to me to be correct. Maybe every day we should exaggerate all kinds of threats a little, and be deliberately more sensitive than necessary. On the other hand, it seems to me that despite the decision of the Lviv Forum, we are not talking about the abolition of Russian and Russian-language literature in Ukraine. This, of course, is a different question and a different topic, but it’s a little similar: when I hear that Russian-speaking people are being oppressed in Ukraine, my personal experience shows - I don’t know a single Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainian who doesn’t know Russian, but I know a lot of Russian-speaking Ukrainians who can’t say anything in Ukrainian. This also needs to be taken into account. And in general, there can be no talk about the abolition of Russian literature in Ukraine. Maybe it’s just worth asking the question specifically and exaggerating it.

Elena Fanailova : Oleg, what do you think about this projection into the future?

Oleg Dorman : It’s not up to me to give advice to Ukrainians on how to behave towards my country. That's my whole answer.

Alexander Ilichevsky : Maryana’s position is absolutely close and transparent to me. What did the Lviv Forum do? The Lviv forum said - come on, we won’t allow publishing houses here as such, because each publishing house can publish completely different authors. We don't have much diversification in each market. Therefore, with our globalization, the monopolization that is taking place in the book market, every publishing house publishes completely different people. Therefore, the decision to treat the Russian book selectively, to focus on ensuring that the forum does not contain any pseudo-intellectual efforts that Russian culture and everything else is now full of, is absolutely understandable and clear.

And the statement that this is too much of a position for growth is nothing terrible here. Because in fact, we ourselves do not yet fully understand what we are dealing with from a historical point of view. It is quite possible that this is the point of divergence of the Slavic world, although for me it is a split in the Russian world, something that is happening now, for many reasons. This should be fixed eventually. It needs to be healed. This wound will need to be healed and restored with great effort. We need to think and care about continuity now. As psychologists say, if you are in a shock situation, you need to get out of this situation as quickly as possible by finding some solutions. Then post-traumatic syndrome will be much easier. Therefore, simply blocking all kinds of cultural contacts is completely pointless. We need to look for something else.

“The combination of humiliation with certain mental qualities, mainly, as we will see later, with falling out of cultural tradition, leads to the fact that the desire to humiliate another is complemented by the desire to destroy. This is the kind of complex that we often see: senseless destruction. [...]

M. Gorky repeatedly emphasized that the root of hooliganism is boredom, and boredom is generated by lack of talent. The combination of lack of talent with social abandonment, with humiliation gives rise to a “slum complex” - a destructive complex; it breaks out in the form of rudeness. [...]

Culture is a very good thing, of course, but it constrains us all: don’t do this, don’t do that, it’s a shame to do that. After all, where does culture begin? Historically - from prohibitions.

A law arises in society, and the first law is: you cannot marry your sister and mother - physically it is possible, but the culture prohibits it. You can’t, say, eat something, let’s say it’s forbidden, according to the Bible, to eat rabbits. In some countries it is forbidden to eat rotten eggs, and in others it is forbidden to eat rotten eggs, but still it is forbidden to eat something.

Do you see what strange thing: the most necessary, simple, natural things are food and sex, and they are prohibited. This is where culture begins.

Of course, the further you go, the more culture requires greater refusals, greater embarrassment, it ennobles feelings and turns a simple person into intelligent person. And therefore, certain people, especially people with little culture or oppressed by their dullness and social humiliation, really want to throw it all off. Then what appears in the 20th century is the interpretation of freedom as complete freedom from human limitations. This is rudeness. [...]

For people with an intelligent psychology, the regulating property is shame, and for people who are shameless, the regulating property is fear: I don’t do it because I’m afraid.

I would hit the child, but I’m afraid that a policeman will be nearby, or I’m afraid that someone else will hit me even harder.

Shame is a feeling free man, and fear is the feeling of a slave. Both belong to ethical feelings, to the sphere of prohibitions. But fear is a forced ban, external, and shame is a voluntary ban.

When people of the privileged classes rise to the level of high intelligence and realize that they are not leading a life that would satisfy their mental and moral level, they feel ashamed. Their existence is guided by a feeling of guilt, guilt before those who feed them, guilt before history, before the country, before themselves. By the way, developed sense shame is a trait noble intelligentsia, this is one of the best psychological traits that culture has created.

Very often, a person emerging from the people was imbued with demands - they didn’t give me, I will achieve, I will snatch, I will receive, there are obstacles on my way. An intelligent, highly cultured person from a noble background thought, very early (often from childhood), that it was unfair, that he was taking advantage of what he had no right to, and he felt ashamed. The feeling of shame regulated a lot, as we will see. It determined the courage of people going to their death, in particular, military courage.”

Lotman Yu.M., Series of lectures “Culture and Intelligence”, Lectures 1-6, cited in: Personality Psychology / Ed. Yu.B. Gippenreiter et al., M., “Ast”; "Astrel", 2009, p. 563 and 569.

The future of one illusion

The future of one illusion(German) Die Zukunft einer Illusion) is one of the later works of Sigmund Freud, published by him in 1927. The work is devoted to the causes of origin and characteristics religious beliefs from the point of view of psychoanalysis.

Editions

The work was first published in the International Psychoanalytic Journal (German). Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag) in 1927. In 1930, it was first translated into Russian under the title “ The future of one illusion» by the founder of the Russian Psychoanalytic Society Ivan Ermakov. After 1930, when persecution of psychoanalysis began in Soviet Russia, the work was not officially published in the USSR until perestroika. Even then it was re-translated into Russian by Vladimir Bibikhin.

The work went through many reprints and was translated into a large number of languages.

Place of the book among Freud's works

"The Future of an Illusion" is one of Freud's later works, published after 1920, which is classified as last period in the development of his teaching. During this period, he somewhat moved away from explaining all aspects of the psyche with manifestations of sexual instincts, supplementing it with ideas about the attraction to death and destruction.

The book has many similarities with the work “Discontent with Culture”, written a little later, in 1929, dedicated to a general analysis human culture and society. In it, the author often refers the reader to “The Future of an Illusion.” The main ideas of The Future of an Illusion were developed in the book Moses and Monotheism, a collection of Freud's articles published in 1939, shortly before his death on September 23.

Culture and cultural taboos

At the beginning of the book the author touches common problems society and civilization, the reasons for the emergence of rules and dogmas. The author identifies two sides of civilization (in the author’s terminology - culture): on the one hand, knowledge and skills that allow people to overcome destructive forces nature and create material goods to satisfy their needs, and on the other hand, the rules and prohibitions necessary to systematize human relationships, especially in the distribution of material goods. The author argues that every person has destructive and antisocial tendencies, which become determining for the behavior of many people. For example, most people do not have an innate desire to work, and are unable to limit their desires by agreeing with the arguments of reason. For this reason, the institutions of civilization can only be maintained with a certain amount of coercion.

Culture, according to Freud, is imposed on the objecting majority by a minority using various means coercion. The author believes that the basis of civilization lies in forced labor and refusal to primal urges. This, in turn, is sure to cause dissatisfaction among those who suffer from it. Therefore, in every culture there must be means of protecting culture: methods of coercion and ways of reconciling a person with cultural restrictions.

The author divides cultural restrictions into two types: those that affect everyone, and those that apply only to certain groups of people. Those that affect everyone are the most ancient, innate and form the basis of a negative reaction to culture. Such prohibitions, as the human psyche develops, cause refusal of primary urges and, thus, the transition from external limitation to internal, in the author’s terminology, its inclusion in superego. This turns people from opponents of culture into carriers. Those prohibitions that apply only to certain classes of society, on the contrary, provoke envy of other classes and general dissatisfaction with the culture.

According to S. Freud's concept, as culture develops, the number of prohibitions increases. The once holistic psyche, which acted under the influence of momentary aggressive and erotic impulses, is increasingly forced to refuse to satisfy them. With the growth and complexity of the world of culture, the conflict between man (his unconscious) and culture increases. S. Freud especially clearly described the meaning of the conflict between man and culture in his work “The Inconveniences of Culture” (1930), where he noted the ever-increasing displacement of man’s natural drives by culture. These critical positions of S. Freud are in many ways reminiscent of the ideas of L. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche and other thinkers of the “philosophy of life”. The process of cultural acculturation, or personal enculturation, is regarded as a derogation of human happiness and leads to the development of unmotivated feelings of fear, guilt, social discomfort, and sometimes mental disorders: “It has been found that a person becomes neurotic because he cannot bear restrictions, imposed on him by society for the sake of the ideals of his culture; and from this they concluded: if these restrictions were removed or significantly reduced, this would mean the return of the lost possibilities of happiness." Thus, at its core, culture is a set of unconscious prohibitions and restrictions imposed on instincts. All these forms social attitudes imperfect and do not guarantee universal happiness. The assertion that this is possible is an illusion, although humanity is looking for various ways to improve culture.

Repressed or forbidden (taboo) by censorship of the preconscious (I) attractions are looking for other ways of realization that are acceptable to society and culture. This implementation is carried out different ways: in some people it leads to mental disorders - neuroses and psychoses; for the majority it manifests itself in dreams, fantasies, slips of the tongue, slips of the tongue; For some, it is carried out in the form of creative activity - in science, religion, art, other socially significant activities, i.e. sublimated. Sublimation (from lat. sublimo- elevate, elevate) is a fundamental category within psychoanalytic theory, meaning mental process, as a result of which the energy of natural sensual instincts and drives, raging in the unconscious sphere of a person, finds access to the spheres of consciousness and action, switching, transforming into human creative energy in various cultural phenomena. The concept of “sublimation” in this sense is not an invention of S. Freud. It appeared in German literature also in late XVIII V. and was already used by A. Schopenhauer and especially F. Nietzsche as generally accepted in psychology. The psychoanalytic theory of art is based on the concept of sublimation and art criticism. However, this concept is not uncontroversial. Let us refer to its rejection by the previously mentioned French researchers, who are convinced that a person should completely trust own desires, rather than “repertoires of imaginary satisfaction.”

So, the general explanatory principle of psychoanalysis is to show how combinations and collisions of psychic forces give rise to sociocultural phenomena. Concerning individual, then the only thing that psychoanalysis can advise is moderation, economy vital energy, which should be evenly distributed among various goals and activities in accordance with their importance. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the statement of S. Zweig, according to which Freud does not make humanity happier, he makes it more conscious. According to S. Freud, just as the meaning of growing up is the development of the mind, thanks to which a person learns to control his desires, the meaning of history is the growth of social, altruistic feelings, the development of science, and the curbing of instincts by culture. Speaking in defense of culture and advocating for the emancipation of man, J. Deleuze and F. Guattari note that “the culmination of psychoanalysis is found in the theory of culture, which takes on the old role of the ascetic ideal.”

Therefore, when you come across people who reject these fundamental, basic ideas, you do not immediately find how to object to them. Imagine a man who insists that urinating in an elevator is his birthright; that anyone who challenges him is a Nazi/Stalinist/inquisitor/obscurantist, and that he himself, in spite of the enemies of freedom, is simply obliged to urinate in the elevator, because a ban on this brave action will lead to the establishment in the country of a gloomy clerical dictatorship, Saudi-style Sharia , fascism and the fires of the Inquisition.

This is exactly the predicament you find yourself in when trying to object to the organizers of the “Forbidden Art” exhibition; The exhibition itself took place some time ago, and the controversy and litigation it caused is currently ongoing.

I recently saw photographs of her exhibits; an icon of the Mother of God, with openings filled with black caviar instead of faces, a Crucifix with the Order of Lenin in place of the face of the Savior and other similar works. Why this can be called “art” is unclear. "Artists" are usually people who create works of art; people who do not create anything, but only spoil what others have created, should be called by some other word.

The medieval artist wanted to draw the audience's attention to God; he depicted the events of salvation history. The creation of an icon, fresco or painting was a confession of faith, an act of obedience to the truth. Rev. Andrei Rublev, Giotto, or Jan Memling were not engaged in self-expression; they expressed in colors the truths of faith. (I will note in parentheses that they are remembered, their works are admired centuries later; who will remember “Forbidden Art” in 15 years?) Then a certain shift occurred - artists began to pay more attention to the beauty of the created world, human body, fruits, trees and clouds. And you can find something good in this - the artist helped the viewer to see the world differently, to feel the beauty that he had not noticed before. Gradually, however, things got to the point where artists (or people who consider themselves such) set out to attract attention to themselves - at any cost. In our time, we are asked to honor with the title of “people of art” people who are extremely unskillful - unskillful in the most ordinary, traditional sense, who do not know how to handle either a pencil or a brush; people offering to the general attention crafts that any second-year student can make, armed with scissors and glue.

At the same time, we are expected to not only agree to consider them artists, but also to recognize for them a certain superhuman status, the right to disregard moral and cultural norms that are obvious to everyone else. As the famous contemporary gallery owner Marat Gelman writes, “The artist is always right…. When you have a super task, you believe that you have the right to a lot. For example, in the film, a policeman who is chasing a criminal easily breaks other people's cars. Why? Because he has a great goal. He wants to catch the criminal and to achieve this goal he allows himself to break the law. And if any ordinary person does this, then immediately there will be a scandal and an arrest.”

But what is the “ultimate task” of this kind of “art”? What message is the author conveying? There is simply no such message; the king is goal. Previously, the artist said - look at the Magi who came to worship the Child; then - look how sunlight plays in the foliage; the authors of the current “installations” say “look at me”; they squeal, scream, make faces, all just to attract attention to themselves. A typical example is the “artist” Alexander Bremer, who committed an act of public defecation in front of a Van Gogh painting.

All this would be of very limited interest - you never know there are people in the world with enormous aspirations and modest talents. However, some “artists” chose Orthodox shrines for their games.

The point here is not even about offending the feelings of believers; the point is the destruction of the very foundations of human culture. As Yuri Lotman famously said, “culture begins with prohibitions.” The culture that makes us live in human society, not in the jungle, suggests a variety of “don’ts” - from “thou shalt not kill” to “don’t you dare urinate in the elevator.” Among these “don’ts” is “do not mock the Crucified One.” People who demonstratively violate the deepest “don’ts” that exist in our culture are destroying this culture. It is no coincidence that Bolshevism is known for its violent blasphemy; in order to destroy a civilization, one must mock its shrines.

The destruction of moral and cultural norms very quickly hits the destroyers themselves - as well as society as a whole. Let us remember the “destroyed” exhibition “Beware of Religion.” After several young Orthodox Christians destroyed its “exhibits,” the indignation of the progressive public knew no bounds—“pogrom!”, “vandalism!” But “artists” are not the people who can be indignant here. After all, these young altar servers are also a kind of artists; If the construction of installations is a sacred and inviolable act of artistic expression, then their destruction should also be considered an artistic act. The young people performed what is called a “performance” in the artistic community. They have the same right to artistic expression as the organizers of the exhibition, and anyone who tries to restrict them will be accused of attempting to introduce censorship and branded a fascist-Stalinist-obscurantist-inquisitor. Didn't you like the performance? These are your problems, who is to blame that you are so ignorant in contemporary art. Indeed, it is somewhat inconsistent to insist that the “artist” has the right to any outrage and hooliganism, and then indignantly shout “disgrace!” "hooliganism!". You have the right to artistic expression, and you don’t care if it hurts someone? Okay, but then others also have the right to artistic expression, and they also don’t care if it hurts you. When people insist on their right to give “slaps in the face to public taste,” and then are terribly surprised and indignant when they themselves receive a slap in the face, this is simply infantilism. “Is the artist always right?” Great, I'm an artist too. If there are rights, everyone has them.

One of the exhibition’s supporters, Sergei Zenkin, noted: “There are different shrines, and some evoke a desire to sarcastically mock them, while others do not evoke such a desire. Let's say, no one would think of mocking the memory of the victims of the camps - Hitler's, Stalin's - it doesn’t matter. But for some reason such a desire arises in relation to religion.” He made a mistake; It’s easy to come across cynical jokes about the Holocaust on the Internet; they are released by the same people psychological type, as the authors of the exhibition, only with different political leanings. Indeed, if you can mock the Crucified One, why not mock those poisoned by gas? Breaking moral prohibitions, the “artists” break them not only in relation to Christianity, which they hate; they break them about everything. Orthodox people It wouldn’t even occur to us to laugh at someone’s cruel death - but we, alas, live in a society that has largely divorced itself from Orthodox roots. In it, the example set by the exhibition - to mock everything, to mock everything - can be perceived with an enthusiasm that will horrify the “artists” themselves.

Of course, the ability of the Orthodox - and everyone else - to treat "artists" to their own signature dish is inevitably limited. Not a single offended Orthodox Christian will arrange, for example, art exhibition, which will depict the artist’s mother in an obscene form. We will never do some things. We support the very culture of prohibitions that “artists” are diligently destroying. In the end, it is in the interests of the “artists” themselves.