"Caution - vulgar!"
Since the sixties commonly referred to as anger-mocking, with visible stukacheskimi overtones newspaper articles against the "alien to our art - against all jazz pachkunov-abstraktsistov, artists from the word" evil "and aksenovstvuyuschih stilyagi-rokenrolschikov harmful mold to health a rustic wood-chopper, the body of Soviet society. Articles about the same exhibition of amateur artists from Zahoperskoy studio art or referred to as "Beauty to be!", Or ... Well, in general, as well.
Even then I was convinced that the good is itself not only through the actions and deeds, but - more clearly and depth - in taste, measure, wit. And evil - through falsely solemn intonation political instructor, strictly fair expression of the school zavuchihi, through the word "use" and "girls", through all the same "Beauty to be" and "Beware of vulgarity." After all that crushing and, most importantly, the obvious banality of which prove quite impossible.
Читать дальше...
Once Andrei SINYAVSKY said that its main differences with the Soviet system of purely stylistic. Many interpreted this statement as a manifestation of aesthetically eccentricity. And in my opinion, he's right absolutely.
I also think that the most fatal divide in society is not through the "idea", not on the axes of "rich - poor," "Russian - not Russian," "patriots - liberals, communists, dissidents," "intellectuals-people. It passes through the territory of style and taste, and all of the above are only employed by the impotence of euphemisms and nicknames.
What is for certain - the style, for others - painful banality. And vice versa. And here, I'm afraid nothing can be done.
There are people for whom television feature with the provisional name "Putin and the girl, touching and umilitelen. There are people for whom the words "I believe that God Himself has sent us to Putin. Putin gave me back my respect for our country!" sound quite positively, or at least neutral. And there are people for whom both are not more attractive than the sound of shovels, stumbles on the brickwork. However, I know: there are people on these sounds did not respond.
Clearly, and vulgarity, and the style does not stand still. They are historical and conventional.
Somewhere I read that in twenty years vulgarity becomes style. And vice versa. It's true. But while for some reason I think that degree of official Soviet-post-Soviet platitudes achieved in recent years, some have a critical point, and the social immunity to it dropped to a level that represents a danger to life.
I think that this all-pervading ocean of drink voluptuous vulgarity has never happened before. Is it really? Or is it just a cultural fatigue irritation? Maybe.
But perhaps the case to the genre? Quite possibly, the fact that the Soviet authorities in the genre sense, was still like opera, operetta and the current is. That was like a tragedy, and later drama, this - at best a farce. That stemmed the accompaniment of orchestra of Soviet radio, the current manifest rollicking pop. Stalinist era singing voice Lemeshev and Kozlovsky, current - Dima Bilan and Oleg Gazmanov. Former state-owned patriotism bargain in gilded clothing from the wardrobe of the Bolshoi Theater. Current - click "Semka" before the doors of some erring embassy.
Clearly, vulgarity see through the smokescreen "grand style" and "high tradition" is more difficult, though honorable, than to find it in the form of naked, naked to his shorts and more. "High" banality of Soviet times was given to a citizen in his anxious feelings, because it was fraught advisable to health orgvyvodami. The current is in a sense, "art for art's sake", because no feelings other than painful heartburn can cause. All the signs of degeneration.
Chekhov once said: "I know that Shakespeare wrote better than Zlatovratski, but I can not prove it. So I can not prove anything to anyone. And to me, no one can. But I also do know that Shakespeare wrote better than Zlatovratski. And much, by the way, forces spend on the preservation of such knowledge.
I sometimes wonder on what grounds I define "their". Who I am inclined to define as "socially close"? As a result, the entire amount inspected my characters is reduced to a simple formula: the most "their" I think those who are funny or not funny at the same thing as me. "Ours" - are those with whom I do not have any time to re enter the cultural convention. These are those for whom the idea of the style and vulgar, if not the same, mutually understandable. That those who do not need to explain anything with them enough exchange glances. This is probably not universal. But it is safe.
Lev Rubinstein