- Apparently, Irina Lebedeva does not think so.

- Judging by the interview, she tries to review all received training in its kvazireformatorskoy change the face of the Tretyakov Gallery to full recognition. All her arguments are packaged in pseudo-democratic phraseology, and is alerting the established concept that is difficult to understand the meaning of the proposed reformation. One thing is clear - the activity of the gallery should be reconsidered, as well as the history of Russian art, in light of the principles of self-proclaimed "modern art". What follows from this dotted line promechennogo plan great Reformation, is unlikely to clear itself, Ms. Lebedeva. What specific actions can behold, despite their vagueness? Let's start with the fact that the museum should be "objective", ie there can be any object up to the toilet, that, I think, and is an indispensable condition declared museification. Apparently, this means "to become a museum of" a new type, "as Ms. Lebedeva. She further declares "that the museum will become a place of communication between society and the media, between society and artists, between the museum and children's audience." But such a "communication" existed from the very inception as a public Tretyakov Museum. And what are "modern communications", it is silent. There is doubt, you know, Ms. Lebedeva meaning of this magic word - "communication". Then it comes to "bringing various segments of the population - and by age and social status, and education qualification, and financial. And again the question arises: what earlier, before her appointment to the post of Director, there were some restrictions for visitors to the gallery with low education, wrong age, social background or financial status? I wish that this thesis "museification", especially on the financial qualifications, was explained in detail.

- What is it ultimately wants to achieve the new director of the Tretyakov Gallery?

- In fact, Ms. Lebedeva wants to find something in common between fine art and neizobrazitelnym blundering. So dear to her idea of their harmony - is fruitless, because we can not reconcile the irreconcilable. Any effort cling to the authority of art worthless. The arts are inherent features emanating from his essence - a reflection of life in its moral, social, philosophical aspects. "Actual Art" in the guise of tattered boot features art does not. Visual Arts is looking for the meaning of life, inventing a new form of postmodernism as the meaning of creativity, that is obessmyslivaet and life and art. A lot of "innovation" can be heard from the throne statements of Ms. Lebedeva. But recall the words of Somerset Maugham: "How stupid people are doing and how cute with the chirp. Perhaps better would be much more they talked, but less act.

- The situation resembles the theater of the absurd.

- All this is political rather than artistic motives. When someone from the Western leaders began to accuse Russia in the absence of democracy, as the first argument put forward by the availability of "modern art: do we have the same freedom as you - the artists that they want, then they do. This political argument, and destroyed the traditional art.

- You could argue that politics has nothing to do with it - the state simply has no money.

- The fact of the matter is that there is a will, there would and tools. Of course, rely on the fact that under the present circumstances the state will invest in art as much as during the Soviet era, is not necessary. Only the USSR Ministry of Culture allocated for the purchase of 10 million rubles. Today the Ministry of Culture of Russia get rid of "non-modern" artists pitiful handouts, while the avant-garde questionable actions in the form of a naked Kulik funds are. Not to mention the very generous support from abroad.

- The ability to sell themselves postmodernists can not refuse. "Traditsionalam" has something to learn from them.

- Alas, today there is no artistic credibility, which would openly protested against the destruction of fine art. They, like the unions of artists, huddled in the trenches and trembling, as if the avant-garde projectile missed them. The exhibition of the same Tretyakov virtually no art of modern times, present day.

- And where did it go?

- Over the border is gone. And a lot - about 30 thousand works of art. In Germany and France, Canada and the United States, China and Japan created a lot of modern art galleries on the basis of Russian works of traditional art direction. This layer of our art in many ways already irrevocable.

- So, in the West our traditional art is just to honor?

- Post-modernism, they have played enough, and he fed them. After all, he maintains an interest in a very shocking to the moral and aesthetic values that have evolved by mankind for centuries. In this "art" exhibit, a bath with rubbish, it's silly to seek deeper meaning, whereas in this work of art to hide them set, and a person can always discover them for yourself. Hence the interest in our traditional art. It has retained a national identity, which the European culture is almost always lost. We constantly talk about the identity of Russian culture. And where is she now? All in the past, as in the picture Maksimov. Meanwhile, when we opened the borders and people saw the free Western art, everything froze. It turns out that in free countries, one can do as he pleases. Everyone, not just an artist with special education. And we have - a prison of peoples. One forbid, another curse, the third artist in general do not. Dumbfounded by the fact that they had previously recalled studied by Karl Marx, who claimed that under communism, when there is no exploitation, everyone can become an artist, because it will have free time for creativity. Our people, having got to the West, looked around in amazement and could not understand: where they are - capitalism or communism, because they also have free time, especially the unemployed. Here and rushed into art. Because of Russia swept the great "actual" communication. Who was nothing in art that was all.

- And it was not a spontaneous protest against the notorious socialist realism?

- When Stalin asked what Socialist Realism, he replied: just write the truth. When this term appears, it is not meant or artistic theory or method. In general, it then no one did not pay attention. The mood in the art world were such that the artists themselves have come to believe that we should write real life. This is then the term began to refine and doutochnyalis to the fact that no one really could not explain what it is. Parallel with socialist realism, and there was the usual realism, marked by the names Gerasimov, Konchalovsky, A. Deineki and many others. In the 60-80-ies were created many remarkable works of another generation of artists (G. Korzhev, V. Ivanov, T. Salah and others). But all of their "innovative" consigned to oblivion. And very happy, considering what they had done in art is something fundamentally new. And actually just turned the urinal and turned it into a fountain. We agree, albeit with great difficulty, that there had been some new phenomenon. Well, call it something, but not associated with art, and consequently, with the Tretyakov Gallery. There emerged a new "dikadans" - discouragement, disbelief in everything that our predecessors seemed almost unaffected. This is a general trend, characteristic of today is not only art, but also the press, television, politics. Everywhere reigns "new thinking". Russia had become a land of fiction.

- But at Winzavod no end of visitors. Go, look ...

- And the zoo's no end. From the fact that visitors are looking at a hippopotamus, he does not become a work of art. Understand that falls under a solid roof of the museum, automatically beginning to be seen as works of art, even if such really is not. All the processes taking place in the culture and art in particular, are closely dependent on the development of capitalism in Russia. True, we no longer speak, as in the 60-ies: catch up and overtake America. But in the field of culture we have caught up with this leading-edge power, not noticing that capitalism entails a lot of negative consequences. In particular, the collapse of national cultures throughout Europe. We also courting America, repeating the whole absurdity of their cultural and ideological slogans. Let us greet with the success of capitalism, but also myself for "drawing", was successfully implemented in our cultural practices.

Interviewed by Victoria Peshkov (http://www.lgz.ru)

http://www.maslovka.ru/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=2837