[Евгений]

..... Case "Forbidden Art" is a trumped-up, said Andrei Erofeev. "To say that for those years that are in the process, the picture became clear case in full, I can not. One thing is clear - it is a political frame-up, having nothing to do with democratic justice system, a customer of this case is unclear, but the obvious singer"

According Erofeev, their opponents - the movement of the "People's Cathedral, whose head Oleg Cassini wrote a statement to the prosecutor - consists of people who are close to the ideology of neo-Nazism.
"Neo-Nazis in all countries are traditionally the champions of contemporary art. Where do they come to power, they always replace the traditional modern art, and here we are not dealing with the Orthodox cultural policy", - considers Erofeev.

The polar points of view on the process become apparent a long time (conventionally they can be formulated as "an attack on freedom of creativity" and "deserved the punishment for blasphemers"). The reason, I think, that many simply do not capture the meaning and specificity of the conflict. Well, yes, freedom of creativity - it seems to be good, but modern art - a phenomenon generally incomprehensible.
Everyone knows that the townsfolk insist that religious symbols (in Christianity is the crucifix, the image of the Virgin, as well as almost all the Old Testament and the Gospel stories) should be interpreted solely in terms of belief, not disbelief. For their part, some modern artists believe that the remembered characters may be used in that context, which is selected by the author of the work. And if the aforesaid context of someone does not like it, it's him, the viewer, and taste problem.
In fact, here lies the conflict. It is important to understand that art is in fact the Church of the war is not declared. With reference to the fact that artist feels his moral right to use the metaphor, which he seems sharp and relevant. Here on this background and misunderstandings occur. It is not hard to guess that visitors to the exhibitions of contemporary art and frequenters of Orthodox prayer services are fundamentally different audiences. at the household level, people can perfectly understand the conservatory they should go to the circus or at a rock concert. But even hitting what is called "wrong address", do not suffer the consequences, which can be equated to the destruction of personality, as is recorded in the indictment Tagansky court.

The rhetoric of civil society in our country is still very relevant, so the State would do well to take into account differences in the public interest in the preparation of legal norms. So far, those rules seem vague and can be interpreted different ways. What is considered "an insult to religious feelings"? Anything that causes dissatisfaction data carrier feelings - or the necessary objective formulation?

As for contemporary art in our country has been broken for many copies. Comrade Stalin called the music of Shostakovich "Muddle Instead of Music", Khrushchev at an exhibition at the Manege called the sculpture "motherfuckers", etc. etc. I think that history will judge. Word for posterity. And do not think they have that in our time were the barbarians, we should express their views at the most - who - "for", who - against. A Criminal Code be left alone. Him, and without art work enough above the roof ...