Paintings of the Soviet period is full of brilliant names. Unfortunately, time is sometimes ruthlessly to the memory of the art formerly known authors. Example is the name of the prematurely departed in 1997 a full member of Arts, Honored Art Worker of the RSFSR Filatcheva Oleg Pavlovich (1937-1997). In 2007, academic halls Prechistenke an exhibition of his memory have included a pictorial and graphic works submitted by the artist's family. OP Filatchev better known as a muralist. He worked not only in the USSR but also abroad. Its walls were decorated with paintings of the USSR Embassy in Washington. Some radical citizens linked intravital success with "giperkonformizmom" mirovoreniya artist in relation to power. Leave on their conscience this statement. OP Filatchev entered the history of art as an artist reinterpreting dull aesthetics severe style, enriching it with new image-plastic language. Filatcheva favorite artists were painters of the early Renaissance. It was in this cultural-historical paradigm was the life-giving source of inspiration and creativity of the author of the landmark. Undoubted interest are the series of portraits of his contemporaries, executed in tempera on levkasnomu ground, as well as a magnificent series of graphic works dedicated to the fishermen to the north and military pilots.
Most of the heritage of the artist is included in the collections of major public museums. The market is practically no work of this author. In this regard, there is no information about the artistic heritage. But sorry. Yourself OP Filatcheva not so clearly understood in the context of the cultural perspective of artistic life in the USSR 70-ies. He himself, not only as a painter, but also as a person, were a type of universal and harmonious human era of great style.
The controversy over the Byzantine Empire Natalia Narochnitskaya,
doctor of historical sciences,
Head of the Paris Institute for Democracy and Cooperation,
president of the historical perspective
February 7, 2008 "Rossiyskaya Gazeta», № 26
Today, February 7, 2008, in "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" published an article by Doctor of Historical Natalia Narochnitskaya "Disputes over the Byzantine Empire. Below we present the complete version of the article.
Film by Archimandrite Tikhon "Death of the Empire. Lessons of Byzantium "is very important today, primarily because it raises the modern man at his today's short-term objectives and indicates where the river flows of universal history. But take it easy. Modern man is inclined to see only allotted a tiny bending of the shore and believe that this is the main line. And when he was trying to show a panorama of the entire path and its meaning, to indicate the origins and open perspective, he plugs his ears, closes his eyes. It is annoying, because it burdens the responsibility for how it affects life with its goals and values in the direction of human history. And not every such responsibility on the shoulder. It burdens.
This largely explains the hysteria that broke out in today's liberal media after the release of the film. Too much of its meaning is incompatible with the persistence of stereotypes in this environment, with orientation on the autonomy of the individual rights of all religious, moral, national and family values. Atomization - feature of the modern consciousness, which is characteristic of retreating from the great questions, locked into consumerism in all areas.
Читать дальше...
And in the film path, the fate of the individual channel interfaced to the history of mankind, which can then turn to take off, then decline. And this is the channel can erode and change depending on our actions. Such awareness is burdened with responsibility, makes life difficult.
But of all earthly beings, only man has a history, one he had in his actions lead, not only short-term circumstances of life, but also understanding the role that he intended to do in history, serving as his personal life implementation of its overall objectives, linking the entire past of mankind with all future. Only man has a record of, and the legend, along with their own notions of their historical problems and their historical responsibilities. We must learn from our historical experience, if you want to have a future.
That is why it is so needed this film. It is that he is so annoying critics, whose nagging to detail and reproaches schematism so helpless and insignificant. Of course, certain sketchiness is inevitable in this genre. Otherwise one would have to accompany each thesis volumes of documents. At a certain movie poster feature in-depth and concise language. And it certainly is true.
Another thing is that to evaluate the truthfulness and accuracy of the film - a problem for many of today unbearable. At the head of the modern man does not have sufficient knowledge, and because much of the true story seems incredible, pulled, distorted. Thus, some terms in the film, over which ridiculed critics, in their view, artificially upset of the day in the past, but something is just came to us from antiquity. For example, the oligarchy - the power of the group, is always accompanied by mob rule - the power of the crowd, managed through the process of consciousness - a term coined in the turnover of Aristotle and Polybius 22 centuries ago as a perversion of democracy.
From the consciousness of man seized the universal importance of the Byzantine heritage. And so contemporary it seems so strange and improbable that one and a half thousand years of Byzantium was the cultural metropolis of the world and the West - his backyard, where the coarseness of manners prevailed, filth, stench, filth floated directly on the streets. But it was true. The daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Comnenus, Anna described the Western barbarians, as in the XIX century would have looked like the invasion of cowboys in the elegant Parisian salon. A European kings in the days of D'Artagnan, washed twice in his life: at birth and the situation in the coffin. But not only was the sun Konstantinov hail culture, but also in Kiev, Russian culture, despite the skepticism of our Westerners, was much higher than the western. Ancient Kiev was one of the richest and most cultural cities in Europe, in the west which, according to the largest French Annales school historian Jacques Le Goff, "barbarians, led a wretched life in primitive and miserable villages (western" city "numbered only several thousand inhabitants, and the city civilization was there is unknown). The daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, Anna, who married the French king, to the end of his days at the French court was the only person who knew how to read and write. Her husband - the king placed a cross, and Kiev princess knew Greek, Slavic and Latin.
Medieval Western world, as Le Goff wrote in his book The Civilization of the medieval West, "was" the result of convergence of the Roman and barbarian structures, not the successor of the Roman Empire, and its ruins, and not only for the Byzantines, but also "for the integration of Muslims in the Western Christian Peace would mean a decline, the transition to a lower level of civilization. " And here is what Arnold Toynbee - the patriarch of British historiography: "In economically and culturally, Islam gave the art of civilization crude, uncouth Latin-Christian world." Splash of science, technology, thoughts on the West bound, indeed, with dislocation of the ruined Byzantine all educated stratum.
And just as the film is valid in the part when it comes to sources of sudden enrichment of the West as a result of a robbery of Byzantium. So far underestimated the scale removed from Byzantium, and then from South America during the conquest of wealth comparable to the centuries-old writings of generations. This is for many an inconvenient truth. And not only in the West, but also among our domestic pro-Western liberals.
Two millennia of Christianity have not generated in the minds of western universalism inherent in such different reflections V. Soloviev and Khomiakov. In the world Eurocentric social thought titans only Western Renaissance and Enlightenment exponents are universal and engines started. But they found themselves filled with nihilism to all non-European. Archetypal disregard for the "eastern barbarians", is transferred to the rival image in Christian history (Byzantium and its successors), fed the ideology not only during the onslaught of the East Holy Roman Empire. The thinkers of the Renaissance, when it came to rival, also lost ecumenical approach. A humanist and poet Petrarch congratulates "the Doge of Genoa and the Council" after the regular looting of Byzantine merchants, pirates, expressing its satisfaction with the pogrom against "the crafty cowards grechishek", expressing the wish that the "shameful their empire and socket errors were uprooted" by the Genoese in retribution, not for goodness overcast all Catholic people. " It can be found and some moods, does for indecent "pillar" of human values: Petrarch expresses aversion to "Scythian faces, flooded his home town" - Christians, Slavs, Turks, sold into slavery.
One could consider racist humanist and lyrics accidental manifestation of purely personal inclination, but in the Enlightenment IG Herder, a representative of German idealism, in passing - always casual (!) - Writes about the "abomination Byzantine history." Hegel, crowning the Western European philosophical thought, in his Philosophy of History "gives only the West right to" freely create in the world on the basis of subjective consciousness, but not finding him "world-historical peoples.
If there is no hostility, the indifference to other cultures, ignorance of cultural heritage within the Western European Christianity permeate historical thinking today.
Even more irritating effect on the post-Soviet Westerners film, when he very clearly describes the role of the West in the collapse of the Byzantine Empire. And during a lightning storm over the Byzantine Empire - Christian's sister, and now the Serbs did not the same thing again: you want protection, go to the submission - almost iskusitelstvo the devil: "You see the kingdom of this, God." And it's all yours ... "
Russia must know that Byzantium - our first mother. And therefore the truth about the greatness and the reasons for the decline should be given to us throughout the volume, not only for the sake of idle curiosity. Even the recognized expert on world history in its comparison of Arnold Toynbee explicitly acknowledged that Russia is alien to the West not because of alleged expansionist ambitions. "Russian incurred the hostility of the West because of its stubborn commitment to an alien civilization, until the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 that the Russian" savage mark was Byzantine civilization of Eastern Orthodox Christianity "- recognizes Toynbee, who refutes the" perception of West, the notion that Russia - the aggressor.
Denial of the West towards Russia is associated with a different attitude towards the essence of Christianity - the bread and overcome the temptations of power and the Beatitudes. Different understanding of human and divine plan for him on the ground showed different interpretations of liberty - "from which" the West, "for which" in Russia.
This is the source of the dilemma Russia - the West, which by chance did not pass all the great minds of the attention of the past. And is now possible to solve the obvious problem of a comprehensive modernization of Russia and full, equal participation in the modern world historical process without self-determination in relation to the aims and values of life, their own and world history? The attempt to involve Russia in a global project uniformatsii world under the banner of "universal" - the same for everyone - liberal democracy is too recalled the drama and the loss of Russia in a collision with the first universalist idea of the twentieth century under the banner of Marxism.
It is hard to get rid of the impression that hysteria about the film covers really panic before the idea of morally sanctioned debate about Russia's place in the world. But is this against the historical compass is not ripe?
Is the implementation of effective internal and external strategy is possible without determining the historical purpose and context?
Critics of the film is not capable of serious debate and prefer to cling to detail. In fact, they are afraid of discourse in the broad historical and philosophical categories. But without it not to feel a historical project, linking past, present and future relations between Russia and the world, not to find agreement on such burning issues as: Who are we? Europe, are we? What is Europe - yesterday, today and tomorrow? Quo Vadis? Do we need modernization, whether we want to continue myself in it? What is democracy and that there is currently liberalism? Bunch of these are not necessarily the pair of categories being imposed on us as a sacred cow, which is rather absurd for the term of Aristotle and Polybius ...
Historically, a viable national state at all times, and even more so in the era of globalization, can not be built again, as it was in 1917, on borrowed ideological schemes and planetary abstract ideas. It should be based on embodied in the law (which corresponds to their age), the organic system of people's lives. The experiments of the twentieth century too obviously demonstrated: for Russia are equally destructive as the isolation and forced depersonalization, as arrogant opposition to the world, and the servile imitation.
Film prompts to think about Russia and the mire, because man is inherently peculiar impulse to find a balance between individual and universal, between national and universal, it gives an impetus to development, the very modernization without losing the semantic core of the inducement to the historic creation of the nation. When nations are told that it is - a failure of world history, that a patriot can only be a scoundrel, she displaced to the margins of world history, responding to a demographic catastrophe.
In the discussion of the historical project of Russia in the world inevitably confronts us once again the dilemma of "Russia and Europe", which has not been spared the attention largest Russian minds of the past. Giant in size, far more indifferent than the West, to the earth and the paradoxical endurance of trials and sent it to the invasion from the East and West, Russia has belonged to the same spiritual heritage, but also gave birth to a historical experience. She dobrodetelstvovala, and sinned always in his own way, and borrow something from the West, transformed it beyond recognition.
Throughout the transformation of Muscovy into Rossiyskuyu empire, and then in the twentieth century in the communist Soviet Union, this phenomenon regardless of whether the real controversy aroused jealousy concerned a special nature, intrinsic only dispersed family members.
And even when Russia turned from orthodox communist in power, she again left the Empire and gave birth to something that is far from orthodox Marxism. Arnold Toynbee believes that communism - the arms of Western origin and traditions in Russia did not exist even a prerequisite to ensure that there could invent communism itself. But it is the application of communism on the Russian Orthodox soil, in the same competing ecumene made it to the West far more dangerous ideological weapon for some time, than any hypothetical communist experiment at the West.
The confrontation of the twentieth century not only to maintain the continuity geopolitical confrontation. Demons and devils sociality of individualism - that's who violently confronted in the twentieth century, while still inheriting eternal Western phobia against Orthodoxy and Russia ryadivshiesya in different clothes, but common to the papacy and the atheist Voltaire, for the Marquis de Custine and A. Marx for Lenin, but, alas, for the post-Soviet Westerners - "tsarist", "Russian imperialism", "filofeystvo", "Byzantinism", "barbarism Normans.
Thus the dilemma of "Russia and Europe" organically entered into a new "great schism" of a postmodern backdrop enormously increased role of financial interests and insatiable ability to live outside their countries. In this discourse the trouble Russia's elite in the 1990 years is not a lack of intellectual capacity, and worldview of poverty, bias in the project of "global governance", disregard everything spiritual and historical heritage of Russia, non-religious and cosmopolitan, Eurocentric view of the world as going to a single one-dimensional model. For the post-Soviet liberal mind, education and ideology, divorced not only from the successive Russian Orthodox culture, but from a true Western culture, a hundred times true definition of S. Bulgakov neslozhnenkoy philosophy of history, the educated middle-Russian: "In the beginning it was barbaric, and then shine a civilization that is enlightening , materialism, atheism ... ", human rights, civil society. However, apart from the fruit of a liberal who grew up on a branch of the Enlightenment, European civilization, like trying to draw attention to Bulgakov, not only has many branches and roots that feed the tree, neutralizing their healthy juices of many poisonous fruit. These roots - Christianity. Therefore, even dangerous exercise if they are balanced by other powerful spiritual currents that do not have such a devastating impact, "than when they appear in the cultural desert, and each claim to be the sole foundation." But it was a cultural desert and is the foundation of the current Westerners - ubogonkoy parody of the great Westernization of the past which was not a denial, but a party of Russian thought.
To break this vicious circle, does not have to hate the West. We must be able to consider Europe as the integrity of the two experiments, and Russia itself - as a value, without which the world is incomplete, and our position among the centers of power and civilization, socio-economic challenges, the spiritual and moral condition of the national culture to see in context the continuation of Russian civilization in modern modernization project.
Russia's state counts its existence, not from the collapse of the USSR. Life Russia embraces millennium of world history, it flows and flows over a huge geographical and mnogotsivilizatsionnom space. All these Russian and connect with them the fate of other nations together successfully defended. Can Russia, can not be the pressure of the Catholic Romano-Germanic spirit, who had an undeniable charm kulturtregerskim who answered the sketchiness "sharp Gallic sense of Pushkin, Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, did Russia, has stood twice before" gloomy Germanic genius, is capitulating to "pop" -- civilization "Pepsi", in which the Motherland, where lower taxes, and home care - the choice of toothpaste?
This should not be forgotten. And it does not befit turn away from the obvious facts, historical analogies, calling them distortions and speculation. I can judge this with good reason, and as the author of more serious work "Russia and Russian in world history", which contains a comprehensive scientific analysis of the fate of Russia in the stream of European and world history, relations between Russia and the West. In many ways, this echoes issues and present my work at the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation. We must destroy the myths and stereotypes created in respect of some countries as an absolutely untouchable in terms of criticism and, conversely, turning the other countries in the dog.
And Archimandrite Tikhon in his film destroys the long-standing stereotypes that speaks honestly about the importance and acute, helps to understand a lot about ourselves.
Untenable and hints at the author's flirtation with the government. There is no flattery to the authorities in the film. Instead, they contain very bold, even audacious thinking that if the elite disintegrated and lost its civic sense, it does not help either successful successors, nor any other measure. I just said about the danger, even for a successful and creative government remain separate and accountable governance.
Russia's "educated stratum, claiming, as before the revolution of 1917, for the teachers to whom he despises the same people, it would be nice at first do homework and pass the matriculation exam in understanding the true origins of ups and downs of their own, European, and world history, not just learn how to pronounce foreign cliche, but understand the nature and source of great categories, such as civil society, human rights, freedom of conscience to distinguish democracy - a mechanism of social organization through the representation of all its ideological and real sectors - from liberalism, has long degenerated into cultural environment of the desert in the slavery of the flesh and pride, unable to bear any culture, no true freedom nor the right. By impulsive judgment Ivan Ilyin, our domestic nihilists reject Russia "for the same thing, for they reject Christianity." It is to them a very suitable Ilyinsky words that they judged Russia with Nietzsche's point of view, rejecting Christianity as a fiction, but "Russia as a country of slaves who went to her desire to persist and perpetuate the despotic barbarism." Russia for them - "this is nothing Slavic hungry vserazrusheniya immediately and covered the teachings of the Apostle Paul about the election of grace, comforting, along with slaves, outcasts and lepers in world history that is still de last shall be first."
And yet: It is significant, as interested in the society adopted this film. The people of something much less than the intellectuals, was proutyuzhen historical materialism. The film was discussed even in the tram. Do not besot our people. He accepts and understands the most serious challenges, can really feel the depth of pressing problems. Despite the fact that it strongly fed "The Turkmen and the endless soap operas.
