Russia (bbabo.net), - I admire the courage of Vladimir Vladimirovich Aristarkhov, director of the D.S. Likhachev, who called nothing less than five hundred of the most famous figures of the Russian theater headed by Alexander Alexandrovich Kalyagin as parasites. It is clear that V. Aristarkhov, as a learned and educated person, did this more gracefully than it might seem in my presentation. Defending the amendments to the Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy proposed by the institute headed by him, he completed his fiery speech directed against all the destroyers of traditional values under the leadership of the above-mentioned A. Kalyagin, with an elegant passage testifying to his erudition in the natural sciences: "There is a special term in biology for creatures that live at the expense of other organisms and weaken those whose juices they feed on - they are called parasites. If the "foundations" are implemented, there will be fewer such parasites. It seems to be not drawn to the trial - nothing personal! - but from the context it is clear who the parasites are. Bravo! As the classic of socialist realism M. Gorky wrote: "We sing a song to the madness of the brave!"
It is clear that "the hat is on fire on thieves", so the "parasites" allowed themselves to turn to the Minister of Culture of Russia O.B. Lyubimova, who is in charge of the Institute. D.S. Likhachev, with a proposal to find work for V. Aristarkhova outside the national cultural space. You can look for something worthy in the field of biological science, where there is still room for combating the pernicious influence of the West.
In the old Soviet times, there were also similar conflicts. The phrase attributed to I.V. Stalin in response to a working report on the immorality of Soviet writers made by D.A. Polikarpov, First Deputy Directorate of Agitation and Propaganda of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks: "I have no other writers, Comrade Polikarpov, for you ...", - most likely an apocryphal. But it was always easier for the Soviet government to change one official than to quarrel with the loyal creative intelligentsia. Then the instigators of the protests could be punished, and even then not always. Most often, Stalin dealt with cultural figures because of their proximity to his political enemies or because of direct denunciations. Aesthetic conflicts played their part, but did not lead to "final solutions".
Therefore, he allowed himself to admire the courage of V. Aristarkhov. He must understand that it will be very difficult to find a replacement for the leaders of the country's leading theaters, and even non-leading ones, overnight. This will take a long time. There are two well-known actors who supported the adjustments to "Basics" here. Moreover, asking N. Burlyaev and D. Pevtsov about their attitude to the modern theater is like asking the Grand Dukes about their attitude to the February Revolution of 1917. In a word, the director of the institute, even such a respected one, is easier to find.
However, it's none of my business. Although I cannotice that it is not so easy to deprive the Russian culture of a person who possesses the cherished knowledge. In his bright speech, accusing the country's best theatrical figures of trying to destroy the state itself and its fundamental values with the money of the state, which is always in short supply, V. Aristarkhov argues that the adjustments to the Fundamentals are a document intended not for "parasites", and for bureaucrats: "Our document is a document for officials, a transparent and clear criterion for the distribution of state funding in order to prevent spending money on anti-Russian projects." If such a document is indeed created, then, as circus performers say: "Chapeau!" - Forgive me for using a foreign word. After all, whoever did not puzzle over such an instruction - from Cardinal Richelieu, who turned the state policy in the field of culture into the most important element in the construction of the French monarchy, to Leon Trotsky, who in 1923 drew the attention of his comrades in the Central Committee of the RCP (b) to the need for systematic work with young writers.
To be honest, the new instructions for officials who will determine what is patriotic in art and what is not, unexpectedly inspired me with the old wisdom of M.M. Zhvanetsky: "What you protect, you have." But let's leave that to my senile imagination.
For culture, there is nothing more dangerous than people who consider themselves to have the ultimate truth. And brandishing this truth like a club, believing that a blow to the head is the best system of education.It is well known that culture is a system of knowledge and prohibitions that is transmitted from generation in a non-genetic way. As well as the fact that the development of mankind is a complex dialectical process of expanding the possible, discovering the new, while maintaining previous knowledge and previous values. Einstein's theory of relativity did not cancel Newton's laws, but deprived them of their universality. This also applies to the fragile sphere of human morality.
It is important to remember that tradition is a multi-layered concept, where each layer once represented an innovative discovery. The adoption of Christianity in Russia was an unusually bold, if you like, revolutionary decision by Prince Vladimir, who determined the fate of Russia for the coming millennia.
Everything that is considered traditional in Russian culture today - from the iconography of Andrei Rublev and Theophan the Greek to the work of K.S. Stanislavsky and A.P. Chekhov - were deeply innovative phenomena, ahead of their time, growing into the future. And not always fit into the generally accepted canons. And who will say that A.S. Pushkin, N.V. Gogol, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin or L.N. Tolstoy were less patriots of Russia than F.V. Bulgarin, S.A. Aksakov or F.M. Dostoevsky.
What a blessing that the Imperial Censorship Committee did not have "transparent and clear criteria" for testing patriotism.
P.S. One cannot help but welcome the decision of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation to send the document correcting the Fundamentals of State Policy in the Sphere of Culture for revision. But there is still concern about the professional competence of the "reviewers".
bbabo.Net