Sometimes you look at such a work of art or a performance and think: what an abomination, how good it was before, under the Soviet communists, censorship, it would certainly have stopped this muck at the distant approaches. And then you watch another work of art, or a production, or even a whole movie, which the current guardians of morality and inescapability, who are in state positions, have already banned (they did not issue a rental certificate, deprived of any license, or simply said - “no to you, not let’s show/exhibit”, or even a criminal case was opened because of insulting someone’s feelings or inciting something that cannot be kindled and propagandized - there are many methods), and you think: these are the scoundrels these current prohibitors-stranglers of freedom and bold creative experiments. These are the kinds of throwings inside one person, and then what can we say about the whole state!

Recently, a practically living classic of the Russian stage, concurrently the head of the Union of Theater Workers (STD), Alexander Kalyagin, rebelled against the state line. The state line is still marked with a dotted line (but with a claim to the now fashionable red line, which will not be crossed in any way) in the form of the draft “Fundamentals of State Policy for the Preservation and Strengthening of Traditional Russian Spiritual and Moral Culture” developed by the Ministry of Culture. values”, which should take shape in the spring, when apple and pear trees bloom, in the relevant presidential decree.

So Kalyagin and dozens of cultural figures who signed the indignant appeal are not satisfied that "state support for culture and education is impossible without establishing additional control."

According to Kalyagin, "as can be seen from the text of the project: everything that is not related to the preservation of traditional values ​​is not necessary, moreover, it is forbidden." And this will interfere with the development of culture, and control measures will interfere with creative experiments.

“Art is a reflection of life, with its shortcomings and virtues, and suddenly we are offered only the preservation of what is declared traditional, then all other themes should simply not be in art? Is it possible?" Kalyagin is outraged. And it's hard to argue with that. Whereas it is not difficult and possible to argue with a phrase that calls into question the linkage of state support with state control. But in general, Kalyagin and his comrades say, not without reason, that this document will become the basis of censorship.

Kalyagin and other signatories were sharply objected by one of the developers of the document, the head of the Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after D.S. Likhachev Vladimir Aristarkhov:

“The right to freedom of creativity does not oblige the state to finance everything, what Kalyagin and his colleagues will declare art.

If only because there is always less money than those who want to spend it. The state should not allow people's money to be spent on projects that undermine our identity and the unity of the country ... Kalyagin's statement is false from beginning to end. He distorts the facts because he is worried about the money allocated to him. The issue price for Kalyagin is 280 million for 2022.”

Further, Aristarkhov noted that among the signatories of the letter there are many of those “who are associated with the destruction of the classical Russian theater, with constant scandals and blasphemous stage productions. These people declared themselves to be innovators, but lacking the talents to create something truly important for our culture, these figures have mastered the art of scandal and outrageousness. Their novelty comes down to a mockery of our classics, our values, our history.”

And at the end of this pathetic speech in the Public Chamber, he called these figures parasites. Some nickname - you can even rename it to the title "People's (Honored) Parasite of the Russian Federation", you can even with degrees - now Irina Apeksimova, and Konstantin Bogomolov, and Evgeny Mironov, and Konstantin Raikin, and Vladimir Urin, and Konstantin Khabensky - in all, almost half a thousand signers of Kalyagin's letter, far from the last in our culture.

By the way, Mr. Aristarkhov himself is also not the last person in it. He was the first deputy minister of culture of Medinsky. And at some point, the malicious deputies (among them the same elk killer Rashkin) simply zadolbali (there is such an innovative cultural term) the Ministry of Culture and, even more offensive, the Ministry of Internal Affairs with inquiries about a possible conflict of interests between Vladimir Aristarkhov and his brother Andrei, who headed the company for some time “Restoration companies”, suspecting in their fraternal activities signs of abuse of official powers and their excess (exactly like Aristarkhov suspected Kalyagin and STD of something). The deputies did not like (this is envy, of course) that from 2014 to 2016, while the Restoration Companies JSC was headed by Andrey Aristarkhov, this joint-stock company received restoration contracts from the state for a total of 1.2 billion rubles (let Kalyagin cry with his miserable 280 million).The investigation, let's hasten to reassure everyone, did not find anything reprehensible. Vladimir Aristarkhov, previously a prominent activist of United Russia (one of the leaders of its Young Guard at one time, he was also Medinsky's partner in the publishing business at the beginning of the 2000s), did not side with the scandalous "case of restorers" in which the director suffered Department of Property Management and Investment Policy of the Ministry of Culture Boris Mazo, and at the same time - and also imprisoned at the same time in 2016 - another Deputy Minister of Culture Grigory Pirumov.

True, apparently tired of fighting off the false attacks of the deputies, Vladimir Aristarkhov nevertheless left his post as deputy minister in favor of his current position at the Academician Likhachev Institute, and his brother left the leadership of the joint-stock company. So the well-known phrase of the classic: "Something began to be pressed against patriotism, apparently, they were stealing" - it does not fit here at all. Everything was clean and legal. As well as (so far) in STD.

Now is the time to turn to the subject of the dispute - thus the "Fundamentals of State Policy for the Preservation and Strengthening of Traditional Russian Spiritual and Moral Values" (draft). This document was published on the federal portal of draft regulatory legal acts and was in the stage of so-called public discussions from January 21 to February 4. So the hearing in the OP on February 7th was like letting off steam on the whistle of a train that had already left.

During a two-week discussion of such a fundamental document, including five days that were allotted for an independent anti-corruption examination, it was proposed to send proposals by e-mail to the specified executor on the portal - a certain Sinikova Irina Vasilievna, with unknown, however, chances of being taken into account. It is even surprising how Kalyagin managed to find all this, read it and get indignant.

I've made it. Read. Having behind him the experience of reading textbooks on "scientific communism" and other examples of political chatter, he was still able to wade through the stream of patriotic stiff consciousness.

Thus, traditional values ​​are defined as "moral guidelines" that are "passed down from generation and ensure civic unity."

The list of such values, according to the authors of the project, includes life, dignity, human rights and freedoms, patriotism, citizenship, service to the Fatherland and responsibility for its destiny, high moral ideals, a strong family, creative work, the priority of the spiritual over the material, humanism, mercy, justice, collectivism, mutual assistance and mutual respect, historical memory and continuity of generations, the unity of the peoples of Russia.

Among the objectives of the project are "countering the spread of destructive ideology", ensuring "Russia's moral leadership in international relations" and strengthening "Russian identity". The documentions raising children "in the spirit of traditional values" and "defending the institution of marriage as a union of a man and a woman." The task was also set to protect the Russian language from obscene language, counteract "destructive ideology" and support traditional religious denominations.

All this also somehow reminded me of the "Moral Code of the Builder of Communism" of the Soviet era, and any other ideological documents of that time. It reminded me of the scientific style of weaving words, through which a simple man in the street cannot get through. But the average layman will not even read it. But if now, as in Soviet times, there were ideological workers on a salary, then they would certainly hold a party meeting, political information for non-party people, and they themselves would delve into the study of the document, drawing a lot of important guidelines for themselves. And, most importantly, installations, a guide to action.

In general, by itself, this document, as it were, "prompts" the restoration of the institution of ideological departments at the regional party committees. I mean, under the governors. Who would monitor the observance of those very "traditional values" by everyone who falls on the bossy and budget-focused look.

Moreover, it is supposed to have its own monitoring system, with tools, including sociology and other statistics, on the basis of which, of course, appropriate abundant reporting will be prepared. The number of events carried out, projects supported by a "nth amount" (used money), the state of the local minds, in what number and who exactly was rebuffed in terms of encroachments on values. Including in social networks. Moreover, law enforcement agencies are mentioned among the performers.

At the same time, the list of generally good human qualities and life guidelines, in general, looks self-evident. Like everything good against everything bad. Well, who will argue, for example, about the importance of moral guidelines that ensure civil unity and underlie the Russian civilizational identity and the country's common cultural space?Unless it seems to picky critics that values, in addition to having the property of being passed on from generation, also have the property of changing. Depending on technological, scientific and other progress and, scary to say, changes in the social system. Otherwise, from generation, you can pass on the values ​​of Domostroy, for example. However, in this case, the project provides for a procedure for revising values ​​for relevance. Once every six years, which miraculously coincides with one presidential term. According to that logic, it is obvious that the new president (presidential term) means new values. Or at least updated. Reboot, please.

The project also personally marks those who pose a threat to our traditional values: these are not only extremist and terrorist organizations, but also "the actions of the United States and its allies, transnational corporations, foreign non-profit organizations." It's like the bogey of "world imperialism" used to be.

And this list of ideological enemies, along with the final list of “traditional values,” creates in itself a fertile ground for censorship. Kalyagin is right here, he remembers how it was. Here you have, Mr. director, for some reason the American author is indicated. On what basis? What did he say about the latest peace initiatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry and our president? And here you have egoism (individualism) sung. It doesn't work, change the setting. And here you are hinting at the possibility of “socio-cultural gaps and social inequality” - and we can’t get it now, the time is difficult, and the elections are coming soon (how, again?!). And here you “devalue the idea of ​​creative work” by inviting a certain blogger Buzova to play in the theater without a GITIS diploma. But in this place "damage is caused to the moral health of people." And then a certain popular performer "massively distributes destructive content", do not let him rent a hall for performances. And here comes the "denial of human dignity, the introduction of antisocial stereotypes of behavior, the spread of an immoral lifestyle, permissiveness and violence, the growth of alcohol and drug use." And, finally, another creator-experimenter may be suspected of a terrible thing - of distorting historical truth. Or even worse (although what could be worse, it would seem) - in "undermining the foundations of Russian statehood and identity."

These are all quotes from the document.

Which is supposed to be introduced, we recall, into effect by a presidential decree, not even a law adopted by the Duma. As a charter for almost all occasions.

At the same time, in fact, I would not argue with many things. And even in the harsh words of Vladimir Aristarkhov, one can see a large amount of truth - including the “bubble”, which should defeat evil.

But here's what's most confusing. When “the foundations of culture and morality” are tried to be codified, put on stamped paper in the form of a practically charter, then thousands of sergeants will certainly run up, who will begin to zealously observe this charter, with busts and kinks in places, as we usually do.

And one last note. What was the strength of the Soviet project for the time being? The fact that he called to the future. “Communism is the youth of the world and it must be built by the young,” as I remember now. In this project, the minimum place was given to “traditional values”, but more space (although yes, everything in words, in empty words) was given to big dreams, bold plans for the future. The project collapsed only when it turned out that the plans were lies and dreams were deceived. But to look now, in contrast to the "true truth" only in the past, is to build another big lie. Because the past cannot be returned. No matter how anyone wants. If it is repeated, then in the form of a farce.

P.S. I recently watched the ballet "Romeo and Juliet" staged by Konstantin Bogomolov in "Stanislavsky". There was great music left from Prokofiev, practically nothing from Shakespeare. I personally knew the great performer Juliet (in theater), who would turn over in her grave if she knew about such an innovation. Although, judging in Bogomolov's way, everything is within the bounds of decency, and the ballet itself was staged by the young choreographer Maxim Sevagin very well. There are a lot of interesting decisions in general - in terms of costumes, scenery, a cynical "creeping line". The production, of course, is hooligan, but in my subjective opinion, it is very talented. I won't spoil further. I will only say that in our time it is impossible to always follow only the canons of the great Marius Petipa, even in ballet. Who is actually French.

The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the editors.

bbabo.Net