Art and power: their influence on each other and interaction. Contemporary art as an instrument of influence on the policy of the Russian Federation Examples of combining art and power
Throughout the history of civilization, one interesting and quite natural connection can be traced - the interaction of art and power. It would seem, how can two completely different spheres of human activity influence each other? But nevertheless, when considering such categories as art and power, it becomes obvious that they are much closer than it is seen initially. Both of them affect the will and emotions of a person, changing them and subordinating them to a specific goal.
How art influences power
In order to understand the nature of the interaction between the political system and creativity, it is necessary to know what they are.
Power is the ability and ability to exert a certain influence on the behavior and activities of people using a set of certain means.
Art is the most important part of cultural life, a kind of spiritual and practical development of the world and the relationships in it.
Art is the embodiment of a flight of fancy, a manifestation of freedom and the creative spirit of man. However, it was often used by those in power to achieve certain political and religious goals. How was it done? The bottom line is that both art and power are capable of capturing the minds of the people and imposing a certain line of behavior on them. Thanks to the works of outstanding sculptors, poets and artists, the leaders of the countries strengthened their authority, belittling opponents, and different cities maintained their fame and prestige.
Art makes it possible to translate rituals and religious symbols into reality, to create ideal and majestic images of rulers. They were endowed with extraordinary qualities, wisdom and heroism, which undoubtedly aroused the admiration and respect of citizens.
Thus, one should not underestimate the influence of power on art, which became an excellent tool in establishing a certain political regime. Unfortunately, often the common people became a victim of deception, which was achieved through the works of poets and writers.
Art and power in antiquity
If we consider the interaction of these two branches of social life, it becomes obvious that many centuries ago this was a very important tool for influencing people. Especially strongly art and power depended on each other in the ancient superpowers. Thus, the Roman Empire during its heyday is famous for its sculptures depicting emperors and generals. We see their perfect physique, classic features, filled with courage and courage, and involuntarily imbued with respect for them. What can we say about their contemporaries?
Very interesting intertwined art and power in ancient Egypt. He endowed the pharaohs with the power of mythical creatures. Often they were depicted with a human body and the head of an animal. This emphasized their divine power.
Middle Ages
If we consider art and power in a later period, we can trace significant changes. The techniques of sculptors, painters and poets became more sophisticated as it became increasingly difficult to influence. Now writers, commissioned by the royal administration, created ornate poems in which they described the exploits and majestic deeds of the ruling persons. The art of those times gave mankind many outstanding artifacts. So, Napoleon I, seeking to perpetuate the strength and power of his army, ordered the creation in the center of Paris, which has been perfectly preserved to this day.
The relationship between power and art in our country
The history of the interaction of these categories in Russia dates back to the 15th century. At this time, Byzantium, which was the heiress of Ancient Rome, fell under the onslaught of the barbarians. Moscow became the cultural and Orthodox center of Eurasia. Our state experienced rapid geographical and economic growth, which required the creation of an appropriate image. kings became a haven for outstanding culturally educated and religious figures. They included talented icon painters, architects, musicians and builders.
The relevance of the influence of art on power today
Of course, everything has changed in the modern world, but the topic being described (power and art) remains very important and relevant. The interconnection of these branches of activity is especially strong during periods of significant political and socio-economic changes. Now there is practically no censorship, which means that any person who seeks to express his thoughts and ideas through art can do this without fear of being punished. This is a very important breakthrough regarding the freedom of creativity and spirit.
How does art influence power in our time? Now these two concepts are very far apart from each other, as people can get reliable and complete information about the domestic and foreign policy of their state, as well as openly express their opinion. It is no longer necessary to influence the minds of the population with the help of beautiful poems and sculptures in order to strengthen authority.
Exhibitions on the topic of the influence of power on art
Periodically, exhibitions are held in different cities highlighting this problem. They are of great interest to those who are fond of history and political science. Not so long ago, a similar exhibition was held in a Swedish museum. It bore the symbolic name "Art for rulers". It was possible to see more than 100 expositions with the participation of 400 exhibits from different eras.
The power of art. Art and power. How are such phenomena as art and power related? Art, as a manifestation of the free, creative powers of a person, the flight of his imagination and spirit, was often used to strengthen power, both secular and religious. "The Bronze Horseman" Thanks to works of art, the authorities strengthened their authority, and cities and states maintained prestige. Art embodied in visible images the ideas of religion, glorified and immortalized the heroes. D. Levitsky. Catherine II «J.-L. David "Napoleon at the St. Bernard Pass" Task: What qualities do artists, sculptors emphasize in the images of statesmen, rulers of different eras and countries? What are the similarities and differences between these images? What are the common (typical) features that symbolize power. The valor of warriors and commanders is perpetuated by works of monumental art. Equestrian statues are erected, triumphal arches and columns are built to commemorate the victories won. Triumphal Arch of Constantine, Rome, Italy. By decree of Napoleon I, who wanted to immortalize the glory of his army, the Triumphal Gate was built in Paris. On the walls of the arch are engraved the names of the generals who fought alongside the emperor. France, Paris, Arc de Triomphe In 1814, in Russia, for the solemn meeting of the Russian liberator army, returning from Europe after the victory over Napoleon, wooden Triumphal Gates were built at the Tverskaya Zastava. For more than 100 years, the arch stood in the center of Moscow, and in 1936 it was demolished. Only in the 60s. 20th century The triumphal arch was recreated on Victory Square, near Poklonnaya Gora, at the place where Napoleon's army entered the city. The Moscow tsars considered themselves heirs of Roman traditions, and this was reflected in the words: "Moscow is the Third Rome, and there will be no fourth." Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery - a monument. 2nd floor XVII century (the desire of Patriarch Nikon to create holy places in the image of Palestine, where the earthly life of Jesus Christ passed) In the twentieth century, in the era of Stalinism in our country, pompous, magnificent architecture emphasized the strength and power of the state, reducing the human personality to an insignificantly small level, ignoring the individual the originality of each person Unrealized projects of Moscow architects of 30-50s. Palace of Soviets Homework. Prepare a report or computer presentation on a topic related to instilling certain thoughts and feelings in people through art. Analyze various works of art of the same type of art in different eras, or select an era and present its holistic image based on works of various types of art.
The basic principles that served as the backbone of the supreme power in ancient Egypt were inviolability and incomprehensibility. From the very emergence of the Egyptian state, they determined the deification of its sovereign rulers - the pharaohs. Their unlimited power was based on land wealth and the exploitation of huge masses of slaves. Already in the 5th millennium BC. rudimentary forms of state power appear, an apparatus of oppression created in the interests of the emerging class of slave owners. Even then, the dwellings of tribal leaders began to stand out among others for their size, and the graves were lined with bricks as this material was mastered. In addition, the leader's grave was rectangular, while ordinary members of the community were buried in ordinary oval pits. Particular attention was paid to the design of the leader's grave because it was believed that the "eternal" existence of his spirit ensured the welfare of the entire tribe. In Hierokonpolis, such a tomb of the leader was found, the clay walls of which were already covered with paintings. In the process of the formation of a class society and the formation of a unified
slaveholding state, the role of the pharaoh gradually increased. Thus, Egyptian society went from the tradition of honoring the leader of the tribe in the predynastic period to the complete deification of its ruler in the Old Kingdom. The pharaoh in ancient Egyptian society was thought of as the vicar of God in the flesh, and therefore received the official title of “good god”. In later times, the common name of the pharaoh was such a designation as “strong calf”, in honor of one of the most revered animals in Egypt - the bull. The ministers of religion taught: "Be afraid to sin against God and do not ask about his image." For the glory of the kings, for the glory of the unshakable and incomprehensible ideas on which they based their despotic rule, Egyptian art was also created. It was conceived not as a source of aesthetic pleasure, but first of all as a statement in amazing forms and images of these ideas themselves and of the power that the pharaoh was endowed with. Art began to serve the interests of the top of the slave-owning state and its head, it was called upon, first of all, to create monuments glorifying the kings and to know the slave-owning despotism. Such works, by their very purpose, had to be performed according to certain rules, which contributed to the formation of canons, which became a brake on the further development of Egyptian art.
Alexander Alexandrovich Vlaskin
Political motives of art
Artistic creativity, self-expression, as well as the activities of politicians, have a great impact on society. A lot has been said and written about the close connection between art and politics, this connection was strengthened in ancient times, when sculptors and artists formed heroic images of rulers, reflected their exploits and victories. Later, art began not only to praise, but also to denounce, vilify certain figures or ideologies. What are the political motives of art, those who create it?
Politicians make history, stay in it, just as artists and writers strive to stay in it... The authors not only depict the world for posterity, but also contribute to the formation of modernity, give an assessment and offer their vision. At the same time, both processes are politically engaged, because what arouses public interest is beneficial to those who want to gain power.
Mass culture, progress in the field of information transfer, the emergence of global means of communication, as well as the dominance of the clip model of consciousness - all this has significantly affected both art and politics. In fact, it is difficult for a modern person to hide from propaganda, offers of various opinions, and art can clothe some ideologies in a popular and fashionable form.
In itself, contemporary art is part of the aesthetic and ethical paradigm, materializes the spirit of the times in certain works, and therefore does not remain aloof from topical issues.
Contemporary art seeks to shape fashion, fashion influences the way of life and the worldview of the consumer society. The author, in turn, can engage in artistic labeling, demonizing some and exalting others, and part of the audience adopts his views, not even being interested in politics as such. Since contemporary art is often a protest, a rebellion of the author, a response to established norms, stereotypes, a test of public morality, then political opposition is also characteristic of it. Figures of contemporary art in different periods of history were singers and artists of revolutions, even if some later understood the tragedy of such a path. However, contemporary art in Russia is now partly used as a political tool.
Contemporary Art Intervention and Post-Soviet Russia
Mayakovsky, who for his time was a provocative and progressive author, spoke about “a slap in the face of public taste”. At the end of the twentieth century, slaps turned into a series of blows, into a kind of provocative competition.
The period of perestroika, and later the 90s, is characterized by the fact that a number of scandalous authors received a kind of “all-terrain vehicle pass” into all spheres of society. The competition of permissiveness resulted in dozens of exhibitions, events, performances, where the moral bar was lowered, there was an attack on traditional, conservative foundations and values.
The landmark event that Vladimir Salnikov speaks of has become very characteristic: “The art of the 90s itself was born on April 18, 1991, when Anatoly Osmolovsky’s group “These” laid out the word of their three letters with their bodies on Red Square.”
One of the symbols of the strengthening and spread of new approaches was the naked Oleg Kulik, who portrayed a dog. The prehistory of this act, which received worldwide recognition, is also indicative - the artist “became a dog” from hunger. He simply gave the critics what they successfully presented to Western society, but which remained wild for Russia.
Despite the fact that the majority of citizens still adhered to conservative views, and were far from studying the subtleties of art history, a large and vibrant community of informals formed in the dying Soviet Union. From the informal environment, dozens of artists, poets, and musicians emerged, who, in the period of permissiveness and encouragement to go beyond the moral framework, received an unlimited opportunity for creative experiments.
The new art, which received a certain carte blanche and was supported by awards, could not reformat the consciousness of the older generation, but it could have a very serious impact on young people, especially in the absence of state programs in this area.
Like bright, but artificial and often harmful products, in the wake of perestroika, samples of Western art also poured into our country, which had not previously been widely used, but began to be called advanced and progressive. Here is abstractness, seeking to displace realism, and existential experiences, and depressiveness, and the denial of the canons, and experiments with the body instead of exploring the soul. And such a product was cultivated, as chewing gum or alcohol was cultivated.
However, there are dozens of examples of works and authors who did not have a destructive impact on society, but some precedents can be considered serving pro-Western political interests. For example, the figure of a professional political strategist Marat Gelman, who became a conductor of contemporary art. He actively participated in the political life of the country in the 90s and early 2000s, but after a series of scandals when his exhibitions were called insulting and violating the foundations of Russian society, he announced the curtailment of the contemporary art market in Russia, and later moved to Montenegro, actively criticizing the policies of Vladimir Putin.
Called himself a political activist and Alexander Brener. He gained fame by appearing naked in certain places, explaining this with various subtexts. One of his most memorable actions was a show on the Execution Ground of Red Square in boxing gloves with a challenge to the fight of the then President Boris Yeltsin. True, in this case, Brener was still in shorts.
In the processes of promoting new and incomprehensible creativity, art managers and gallery owners come to the fore, which can contribute to the development and prosperity of the author. They also send requests to his activities, bring, if necessary, a political component in the order or selection of works.
By the beginning of the 21st century, a community had developed in Russia that dealt not so much with classical art as with provocative experiments. This applied to the visual arts, and cinema, and theater. Depressive art that denies authority and despises classical canons began to be elevated to the norm. It also brings to mind “Norma” by Vladimir Sorokin, a cult writer who gained popularity just at the turn of the century. It was not for nothing that his prose was called "excremental", since much attention was paid to excrement.
Features of the positioning of contemporary art
Of course, not all authors and gallery owners pursue political goals and increase their popularity through provocations. For example, the well-known gallery owner Sergei Popov spoke about the cutting of icons and other mockery at exhibitions: “I reacted extremely negatively to the exhibition“ Caution, Religion ”- it was a provocation in its purest form. And it gave rise to a very bad reaction of the conservative public to contemporary art, we are still reaping the fruits of such idiotic actions. As a provocation, art can only be presented in countries where they are ready for it. But artists do not have the right to slaughter pigs and show images of naked women in countries where Sharia is in force - they will be beheaded for this. And in Russia it is impossible to organize provocations on religious topics, not to take into account the context of the country.
Thus, provocativeness is not a prerequisite for contemporary art. This is more of a choice, and a conscious and motivated choice. Those who have made this choice often become participants in not only artistic, but also political processes, a tool in the hands of political technologists.
Actionism has become an important feature of the post-Soviet period. One of the leading artists, Anatoly Osmolovsky, described this phenomenon as follows: “In a society that is not sensitive to art, the artist has to hit the head with a microscope, instead of observing some beneficial bacteria in it. Society in Russia is not sensitive to art, therefore, since the 90s, our artists have been practicing direct entry into society itself - these are actions, interventions.
Actionism, being a way out of the usual artistic spaces, is also close to politics, and a number of actions carry political overtones. This kind of activity also attracts the media, which actively broadcast bright and provocative actions. With the development of the Internet, clip and viral events are becoming a popular product that reaches a wide audience. This is the undoubted benefit of using contemporary art to promote the desired ideology.
Journalists brought actionism, which often falls under the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on hooliganism, to a new level of popularity. It is strange in itself that the action of the Voina group with the overturning of a police car was generally called an artistic act. But this group also received in 2011 the prestigious Kandinsky State Prize, established by the Ministry of Culture for an action with a drawing of a member on a drawbridge opposite the FSB building in St. Petersburg.
The current "troublemakers" who implement an ideologically destructive message - the artist Pavlensky, "Pussy Riot", "The Blue Rider", earlier - the art group "Voina" - they all developed precisely under the influence of the style of the 90s, the encouragement of permissiveness, which made synonymous with freedom. And such examples can be called one of the weapons of the information war. Just as in the late 80s, rock and roll became a weapon against communism and "sovietism". True, unlike rock hymns, the actions of drawing huge phalluses or wrapping in barbed wire do not get such a large number of fans.
The political overtones of Brener or the provocations of Ter-Oganyan, who cut icons with an ax, were replaced by an orgy of the art group "Voina" in the museum, dancing in the temple, but the essence remained the same - the author gains fame (albeit scandalous) and citation, and a possible customer or patron - a political metaphor accessible to the masses, which can be actively used in the future.
According to the artist Nikas Safronov, today about a hundred people decide the policy of all art in the world, and it does not matter whether you can draw or not. If you have charisma, if you made people talk about themselves, this can already be part of the art.
Clash of provocateurs and conservatism
In fact, as many experts said, including A. Konchalovsky in his famous lecture on contemporary art, the goal of provoking often replaces artistic skill, as can be seen from the flagships of the genre.
With the strengthening of conservative sentiments, with the strengthening of civic patriotism and statehood in general, the free actions of provocateur artists began to receive more and more criticism.
By the beginning of the new century, postmodernist fashion had become stronger in the theater, in literature, and in the visual arts, while the chosen conservative course of the state led to a clash of interests and preferences in the artistic environment. Some sought to show something that required additional explanation, something that largely repeated the Western tradition of ten, twenty and thirty years ago. But the principles of shock therapy in art, popularized at the same time that shock therapy was applied in the economy in relation to the whole country, did not captivate the majority of citizens. Outrageous, arrogant, obscure, defiant, sometimes aggressive and depressing - all this remained alien. Realizing this, the conductors of such art began to insist on the elitism of their product, on the fact that it is only for the elite, educated and highly developed. This division became one of the factors of the conflict. This feature has already manifested itself more than once in Russian history, but not everyone draws conclusions. The people are called cattle, gray mass, quilted jackets and so on. Separate epithets are awarded to the Orthodox community, which was recorded as "obscurantist". With this approach, a small group fences off, and also cuts off the possibility of spreading popularity to the general public, calling their product "art not for the masses." Take, for example, the play “Boris Godunov” by Bogomolov, where the situation in power is displayed on the stage of the academic theater with a hint of modernity, and on the big screens the titles “The people are stupid cattle” go on and on.
Following the traditions and principles for one part of society is portrayed as something shameful and backward, and this is one of the important tasks of the Russian liberal ideology. The image of the "stealing priest" appears in films ("Leviathan"), and in songs (Vasya Oblomov's "Multi-Move"), and on stage ("Boris Godunov"). All this looks like the development of one trend, and the most effective remedy for this seems to be the creation of an alternative artistic product of a mass orientation. Excellent examples in this area are the film "The Island", the book "Unholy Saints", etc.
Perhaps the most resonant conflicts of provocation and conservatism were the recent situation with the opera Tannhäuser, as well as the scandals around the Forbidden Art exhibition in 2006. Here we can already talk about the clash of political concepts, liberalism and Westernism against guardianship, when there is a deliberate destructive effect on objects and objects of religious worship.
The Church and Orthodoxy in general become one of the targets of artistic provocation, which can be called a way of influencing national archetypes. These are the famous cathedrals of blue enemas, and the cutting of icons, and so on.
True, contemporary art can influence politics in a more straightforward way. The same play "Boris Godunov" is a caricature of the current government with images of both the president and the patriarch. There are also performances at the “independent” Theatre.doc, where the plays Berlusputin, Bolotnaya Delo, ATO appeared, and now they are preparing a play about the Ukrainian director Sentsov, who was convicted of preparing terrorist acts in Crimea. Here there is a defense of the right to swear on stage, which is called an integral artistic device.
At the same time, when this theater began to have problems with the premises, both famous Russian cultural figures and Western ones actively stood up for it. The inclusion of foreign cultural stars in the political agenda is a popular technique. They stood up for the "Tannhäuser", and for the same Sentsov. It is worth remembering Madonna, who went to one of the concerts with the inscription "Russian Riot" on her back, although she really did not know anything about this band. Such examples demonstrate the unity of political goals, and the general lines that directors, actors and artists are willing to serve.
It is also interesting to observe the penetration of politicized contemporary art into the regions. Liberals traditionally had low popularity in the provinces, and art can convey those theses that are difficult to perceive from the lips of visiting politicians. The Perm experience with the massive introduction of modern and incomprehensible art to the Ural region proved to be not the best. The apotheosis of the participation of politics in this process was the exhibition of Vasily Slonov, who depicted the symbols of the Sochi Olympics in a disgusting and frightening way. But theatrical productions are more understandable, with their help it is easier to broadcast the worldview. Therefore, Theatre.doc tours with pleasure, therefore they tried to put on a scandalous play "The Bath Attendant" in Pskov, therefore the "Orthodox Hedgehog" appears in Tomsk.
A number of cultural figures joined the columns of demonstrators and protesters. This in itself is not new, since there have always been many rebels in art, only the current Russian situation is devoid of any romantic revolutionism, it is rather a monotonous game of dissidence, to which Ulitskaya, Makarevich, Akhedzhakova, Efremov, partly Grebenshchikov and others have joined talented people for the most part of retirement age. Representatives of the old intelligentsia, who still remember kitchen politics and self-publishing, are happy to see them, but young people are somehow not impressed with such “public opinion leaders”. Of the young opposition figures, in addition to Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina, who are perceived ambiguously even by the opposition, one can single out musicians Vasya Oblomov and Noize MC, who, however, are not so radical.
Guardians in contemporary art
Along with the liberal forces that see in modern pro-Western, postmodern art their life-giving environment, as well as the opportunity to broadcast an ideology close to them, more and more authors began to appear, as well as creative unions that, using the avant-garde style, pop art, defend already patriotic values.
Fashionable areas of art can and should be a means of self-expression and transmission of the necessary theses for the protectors, for those who need an independent Russia that honors traditional values.
Examples of political protection in art can be seen not only in the halls and galleries, but also on the streets of our cities. Many exhibitions by artists who support the Kremlin's policies, as well as thematic performances, take place in the open air, attracting both hundreds of spectators and journalists.
Separately, one can note street culture - street art, one of the most popular manifestations of which is graffiti. In Moscow and a number of other cities, more and more patriotic graffiti began to appear, and large-scale ones, covering hundreds of square meters of the surface.
There are also artists who draw inspiration from patriotic themes and images of the country's leaders. So, a discovery in this area a few years ago was the St. Petersburg artist Alexei Sergienko, who became famous for a series of portraits of Vladimir Putin. Then he created a number of paintings in the style of Andy Warhol, but only with iconic Russian symbols, as well as a collection of "patriotic" clothes, in which the ornament was from nesting dolls and other classical elements of Russian culture.
In music and literature, a certain patriotic layer has formed around the theme of Donbass. These are Zakhar Prilepin, who was previously considered an oppositionist and collaborated with the NBP, and Sergey Shargunov, and the most popular group "25/17" with heartfelt lyrics, and a number of other well-known authors. These people and collectives, each of which has thousands or tens of thousands of fans, constitute a serious counterbalance to the liberal wing of creative figures.
Entire associations also attract attention. Thus, the Art Without Borders Foundation caused a huge response with the exhibition "At the Bottom", which collected examples of immoral and sometimes offensive scenes in the modern Russian theater. At the same time, attention was drawn to the fact that budgetary funds were received for a number of scandalous productions. This action has caused a storm of indignation in a part of the theatrical environment .
The foundation itself, however, is also known for its art exhibitions, in which young authors demonstrate works on current political topics in the style of pop art.
There were also theatrical performances in a patriotic spirit. One can recall the attempt of the Vladimir theater to transfer the story of the "Young Guard" to modern Ukraine - this performance received many angry reviews from critics.
There is also the SUP project, which was noted not only for readings on the Ukrainian conflict, but also for a small political performance about dreams about revolutions and historical experience that denies these very revolutions.
In the season that has begun (both political and creative), we should rather expect a strengthening of the protective link, strengthening and greater artistic diversity. At the very least, the prospect of attracting an audience depends on the quality of an artistic product, its originality and spectacularity, and this is, in fact, a struggle for the intelligentsia, for those who can be leaders of public opinion. And the reflection of opinions and beliefs on the stages and in the halls is no less important than street performances.
On the current situation in the field of contemporary art
By the 2015-2016 season, the liberal part of the art community continued to talk about “tightening the screws” and increasing government pressure. The scandal with the Golden Mask award, which was decided to be reformatted, was indicative. The established expert council from among “their own” was changed, which angered many critics and directors. Kirill Serebrennikov and Konstantin Bogomolov even refused to participate in upcoming events. But the experts simply became different, with different opinions and views, and not people from the same camp. But even this angered liberals, who saw politics in the change. It turns out that the so-called "free creators" are intolerant of criticism, and the most prestigious theatrical award was usurped in order to introduce into the domestic theater their own canons and principles, far from classical and academic. The authors of the main stage scandals at one time became the owners of this award. The “Golden Mask”, in turn, played the role of some protection: “Well, you can’t scold him, he’s the winner of the“ mask ”.
Figures of contemporary art are trying to present themselves as special, outstanding, while dictating their own opinion, paying attention to politics. Political motives can only intensify next year, which will see parliamentary elections and, consequently, an increase in political activity. Due to the Internet, a number of authors and critics get access to a wide audience, and bright and original works will be aimed at spreading the necessary ideologies. Even manifestations of a new wave of political actionism are not ruled out.
Naturally, it is both difficult and irrational to suppress such a wave with prohibitions and restrictions. On the other hand, the practice of symmetrical responses seems to be quite viable - something that has already been successfully tested in foreign policy. That is, in the world of art it will be a response of creativity to creativity, creativity to creativity, a battle for the audience, despite the fact that the majority of the population is still inclined towards conservative and traditional values, is not looking for ways to understand the abstract, is not ready to substitute its taste for " slaps" artists. Naturally, this statement does not apply to outright provocations and violations of the law, for countering which there are completely different reliable mechanisms.
It is hard not to agree with N. Berdyaev when he states: “Art must be free. This is a very elementary axiom, because of which it is not worth breaking copies. The autonomy of art is affirmed forever. Artistic creativity should not be subject to norms external to it, moral, social or religious... Free art grows out of the spiritual depths of a person, like a free fruit. And only art in which this depth is felt is deep and valuable.
Analyzing the specifics of the art of the 20th century, we found that the process of forming a new style has begun, integrating the features of the development of scientific consciousness, technology and other aspects of culture. The attitude towards art began to change as something only decorating life, it becomes equal with science, comprehending the same problems of life, but by other means: with the help of an artistic image that is adequate to the new reality. This process was characteristic of both European and Russian art.
However, these processes were significantly deformed by the radical transformations taking place in the socio-economic and political spheres of human life.
Understanding the free nature of art has always been characteristic of the artist, but it is still difficult to stay away from topical issues during periods of revolutionary changes in society.
So, K. Malevich, like many other artists of revolutionary Russia, was actively involved at first in social activities to renew culture. However, he soon remarks: “To my great chagrin, most young artists believe that the spirit of renewal in art is subordinated to new political ideas and improved social conditions of life, due to which they turn into executors of the will of the rulers, ceasing to renew beauty itself,” wrote He. “They forget that the value of art cannot be reduced to an idea, whatever it may be, and that all arts have long become international values ...”
Let us, however, pay attention to the fact that in totalitarian states art is given especially close attention. Let's think about the reasons for this phenomenon.
As you know, the main feature of totalitarianism is the fusion of all spheres of society. Ideology becomes their common denominator: in Italy and Germany - fascist, in the USSR - Marxist-Leninist, in China - Maoist, etc.
Under these conditions, art is regarded as the most important means of ideological influence on the citizens of the country, the formation of a special way of life that corresponds to ideological guidelines.
Modern art, becoming mass, having received new, technical means of distribution, can influence much more effectively than direct propaganda, influencing not only the logic, but also the feelings of people.
The totalitarian government pays special attention to the most prestigious areas. The concentration of economic levers and opportunities in the hands of the state made it possible to provide material support for space exploration, the development of opera, ballet, sports, and to occupy leading positions in the world in these areas. And indeed, the magnificent opera and ballet school of the Bolshoi Theatre, the brilliant concerts of the Moiseyevites, the performing school of the Moscow Conservatory have always delighted numerous admirers of these genres in many countries of the world.
Cultural figures themselves are involuntarily drawn into the process of ideologization of society. And even if the artist does not declare his political position, he inevitably finds himself involved in a big political game. This game of totalitarian power with people of art has some patterns: the government first uses the most gifted of them, their creative potential and revolutionary impulse for propaganda purposes, and then isolates them from society.
Let us give some typical examples. In 1917, K. Malevich was elected chairman of the art department of the Moscow Council of Soldiers' Deputies, then - a member of the commission for the protection of artistic values of art and the commissar for the protection of values \u200b\u200bof the Kremlin. In 1924 he created and headed the State Institute of Artistic Culture. But already in 1926 he was removed from this post, and after a while the institute was liquidated altogether. In 1932, his works were included in the exhibition "The Art of the Age of Imperialism" in the Russian Museum, in 1935 the last show of his works (until 1962) took place in the Soviet Union. But the first representative exhibition was held in Moscow only in 1988.
In Germany, the leaders of the National Socialist Union of Students, speaking in 1933 in the assembly hall of the University of Berlin, declared themselves supporters of expressionism - "original German" art. Until 1936, the works of Barlach, Nolde, Franz Mark, Kandinsky, Klee were exhibited at the Berlin National Gallery. Soon, however, such exhibitions were banned or closed by the Gestapo on the day of the vernissage. In 1933, Propaganda Minister Goebbels sent an enthusiastic telegram to Edvard Munch - the "great German master" in honor of his 70th birthday, and soon he ordered the arrest of his paintings.
On July 19, 1937, on the eve of the opening of the exhibition "The Art of Degeneration", Hitler delivered a hate speech in Munich: stone age and stammering art in the caves of their ancestors, to add their primitive cosmopolitan scribbles there.
Totalitarianism does not tolerate diversity, and therefore it creates its own standard in art, which is official, like, for example, socialist realism in the USSR. Everything that did not correspond to it was subject to a ban. And the ban is terrible not only because it does not allow you to see the results of creativity, but also because it initially deforms the consciousness of the artist, directing his talent in a given direction.
One of Ray Bradbury's short stories contains a wise warning to mankind. A careless time traveler crushed just one inconspicuous insignificant butterfly with a forged boot. Returning to the present, he discovers that this has led to a change in the state regime.
Mankind impoverishes its spiritual life with each cut off search.
In a totalitarian society, even magical significance was attached to art, because it was believed that in a book, film, etc. there must certainly be a handsome, intelligent, patriotic hero, because, having met him, people will also become like that. But the essence of art is not limited to its social class content, it doesn’t matter for him whether he is a proletarian artist or a bourgeois, but it’s important whether he is talented or mediocre, it doesn’t matter what his hero’s profession is - he’s a jester, a king or a peasant, but it’s important how exactly they are interpreted in the work eternal themes of Good and Evil, Love, Truth, Beauty...
The main condition for creativity is freedom. But “totalitarianism destroyed freedom of thought to a degree unthinkable in any of the previous eras,” wrote J. Orwell. - ... The question that is important to us is this: can literature survive in such a society? I think the short answer is: no, it can't. If totalitarianism wins on a world scale, then literature will die ... And in practice, totalitarianism seems to have already achieved such results: Italian literature is in deep decline, and in Germany it has almost ceased to exist. The burning of books is the most revealing side of the activities of the Nazis, and even in Russia the flourishing of literature that was once expected did not occur, most of the talented Russian writers commit suicide or disappear in prisons.
The ban on innovation, the establishment of the photographic aesthetics of "socialist realism", the "return to classicism", the proclamation of "the superiority of Soviet art over the arts of all countries and all past times" turned into a real drama of Russian culture.
Dozens of cultural figures left, and for many years their names were deleted from the culture of Russia (V. Kandinsky, for example, was ranked among German expressionism in Soviet publications), S. Yesenin, Vl. Piast, M. Tsvetaeva committed suicide, P. Filonov, driven to extreme poverty, died in the very first days of the Leningrad blockade, N. Gumilyov, B. Pilnyak, B. Yasensky and many others were shot, I. Babel, O. Mandelstam,
V. Meyerhold and many others died in prisons and camps. Vl. Mayakovsky and A. Fadeev shot themselves, realizing the horror of the consequences of giving their talent to the service of the party. Others, like B. Pasternak and A. Akhmatova, were forced to remain silent for decades. B. Pasternak, who was awarded the Nobel Prize, could not go for her.
Another totalitarian state - fascist Germany - could not leave in 1935 another of its laureates - the German journalist Karl Ossetsky, an open opponent of National Socialism. The Nazi newspapers then wrote: "The issuance of the Nobel Prize to the most famous traitor is such an arrogant and shameless challenge, such an insult to the German people, that it should be given an appropriate response." K. Ossetsky was thrown into a concentration camp, after a forced telegram from his wife to the Swedish Academy with the refusal of the prize, he was transferred to a clinic, where he soon died.
What totalitarian regimes have in common is the globalism of art as a consequence of the globalism of tasks: a thousand-year-old Reich in Germany and a wonderful future for all mankind in the USSR. Hence - monumental monuments in both states of unprecedented size. Even that living thing that always nourishes art - custom, tradition - is enveloped in an ideological veil. All that remains is that from which their own dominants of the totalitarian system grow.
So, the "genuine" history of Russia began in 1917, and the prehistory - with the Decembrists, who opened the national liberation movement. History is being rewritten, monuments are being demolished, the historical environment is being destroyed. And in every city, instead of historical names, there are Soviet, Krasnoarmeisky, Communist streets.
However, we will not simplify the problem by arguing that under the conditions of totalitarianism the emergence of unique, talented phenomena of art is impossible.
Life in a totalitarian state is always more complicated than schemes. The brightest and most cheerful films that have become classics, such as "Circus", "Volga-Volga", "Merry Fellows", were created in the pre-war years, which were tragic for the country. Their success was predetermined not only by the talent of their creators, but also by the needs of Soviet people for such art, who lived overwhelmingly in communal apartments, in plain sight and needed, on the one hand, to compensate for the realities of a disenfranchised life, and on the other, who firmly believed in a brighter future. .
Under these conditions, when, as J. Orwell said, “all art is propaganda”, artists created not only because they had an ideological order, many of them sincerely professed the values of the new society.
At the same time, in totalitarian regimes, along with official art, a parallel culture always develops - the underground, i.e. underground culture, manifested through "samizdat", dissidence, through the wide dissemination of the Aesopian language.
Everyone knows the names of V. Vysotsky, B. Okudzhava, B. Akhmadulina. These are the artists whose exhibition in Moscow (Izmailovo) was crushed by bulldozers. And those artists, writers, directors, whose work was not completely banned, hid the true meaning in the subtext, which the intelligentsia learned to "read". The theaters "Sovremennik" and "On Taganka", "Literaturnaya Gazeta", the magazine "New World", films by A. Tarkovsky were famous for allegories. Artists used Aesopian language to show their works, because, as Vrubel argued, an artist without recognition of his work by the public, without dialogue with the viewer is doomed to non-existence.
The great humanist of our time, A. Schweitzer, in his well-known book "Culture and Ethics", written in 1923, noted:
“... When society influences the individual more strongly than the individual influences society, the degradation of culture begins, because in this case the decisive value - the spiritual and moral inclinations of a person - is necessarily diminished. There is a demoralization of society, and it becomes unable to understand and solve the problems that arise before it. Eventually, disaster strikes.”
This deep thought gives us the key to understanding many processes and phenomena in the field of culture, both past and present, related to the interaction of the artist and society.
An obvious condition for freedom of creativity is the real embodiment of democratic ideals in the life of society. However, no country in the world can claim a solution to this critical problem. The proclamation of democratic norms by the world community and many countries in the 20th century. is undoubtedly a great achievement of mankind. However, their full-blooded implementation has not yet become a reality. Freedom, not secured by the material conditions for its realization, cannot become reality and remains only in the world of the possible. Moreover, a society in which the power of money is so great cannot, in principle, be truly democratic. By the way, the commercialization of culture, which worries everyone so much, is not accidental, it is a natural consequence of the modern socio-economic structure of democratic societies.
Thus, the art of the XX century. - in one form or another - with losses and gains, it turned out to be included in the social and political context.
Why is the government in one form or another trying to influence art?
What are the forms of influence of power on art in totalitarian and democratic states?
How is the influence of society on art carried out in the conditions of democratic states?
