The defendant
The artist had several Belyaeva sources of inspiration: New Academy of Timur Novikov, the totalitarian aesthetics epic Lenny Riffenshtal, Rodchenko and mosaic panels of the Moscow metro, imperial heroism of ancient Rome, psychedelic practice 1990. In general, Belyaev-Gintovt was a typical decadent and dandy. When Novikov from the philosopher turned into a purely natives in the blouse, and an ax in his hand, which threatened the pages of the newspaper "artistic will" every Kulik and Osmolovsky, Belyaev-Gintovt not hesitate to support the general line of his teacher. Timur Novikov mocked modern art with such a serious countenance, that some began to call him a fascist. But if in the 1990's traditionalism and radical statement about returning to the roots were opposed to political and cultural mainstream and quite fit in with the avant-garde rebellion, but today in the context of the new state doctrine of traditionalism, has lost to Timur inherent irony and detachment, it seems scary.
On the one hand, Belyaev-Gintovt is developing a grand style, which is well within the new doctrine of a strong state - a successor sovetskoimperskih and simultaneously pre-revolutionary political principles and traditions. But in terms of the current artistic mainstream it - the margin. He remained in panesteticheskih 1990. "Style Stalin" in gold (although, perhaps, gintovskoe gold - it is an alchemical element, the symbol of the Scythian kingdom and Orthodox golden domes?) - A purely postmodern combination.
Imperial trend
Exhibition of award nominees Kandinsky showed that the main trend in contemporary Russian art has become a reflection about the Soviet past or present Russia with its imperial sentiments. The same theme, but in a less linear form of lead and in the last prize: Vladislav Mamyshev-Monroe with a parody version of the film "Volga-Volga" and Anatoly Osmolovskii in the series "Bread", in fact, working with the same archetypes and themes that and current winner, but they did it, perhaps more ironic, more modernistichno in form and content.
This year, the imperial theme manifested in the "militant earth and the heavenly host" Orlova, "Throne" Shekhovtsova, political fashion Dmitry Tsvetkov, and even in the works of Dmitri Gutova, which sounds kabakovskaya theme of loneliness a little man in a totalitarian world. Paintings and Objects "young artist of the year" Diana Machulina were completely focused on political, as well as project the winners in the category "Media art" of GHGs.
Question: Why in such a rich selection of the jury chose to just decorative art Belyaeva-Gintovt?
Why the jury chose him?
Voting 4 to 3 (six-member jury, plus one vote in Board of Trustees). For Belyaeva-Gintovt made Catherine Bobrinskaya, Alexander Borovsky, Valerie Hillings and Friedhelm Hütten. Andrei Erofeev, Jean-Hubert Martin and the Board of Trustees voted for Boris Orlov.
Raise several versions of the alignment of the votes. The first - the jury made a mistake, as foreign experts do not know the local Russian contexts, and the words "Brothers and Sisters" took in vudstokskom sense. Not believable.
Or: the choice was the result of lobbying. Lobbying - in principle, common in all sorts of jury practice. In this case, if it was then possible by Andrei Erofeev, who published his negative opinion about the winner before the final vote, but lost as a result of lobbying battle.
This is another version: the jury has decided, under pressure from the art-community. Such pressure, and with it political argument, indeed it was, that the jury confirmed. However, the jury took a tough stance. However, all four voted for the Beliaev-Gintovt (two foreigners, art historian and museum director in fact, especially St. Petersburg), regardless of Moscow's art community, and therefore could hardly take his bidding.
It and many other versions. On his decision to let him speak jury. Judging by the reaction of the public art, the jury was far more visionary than it seemed. If we assume that one of the tasks of modern art - the picking in the public mind, to work with public fears and complexes, someone who is, and Belyaev-Gintovt just represents one of the main fears of a liberal society - a return to totalitarianism, and the dream of a new empire.
Thus the jury, and after him and the art community updated the previously marginalized artist.
War and mir
Last year, a reaction to the winner's prize Kandinsky - Anatoly Osmolovsky - was exactly the opposite of the current: news about the winner had to cheer. The jury last year was almost the same as this year. The question arises: why in the past year art community to recognize the jury's decision, and in this - no? Why, then trust the credibility of the jury, and now - no? Maybe that's not the jury, and in the art community, which creates a "enemy image"? Incidentally, if so, it is curious why the liberal critics as fiercely fought not with the organization "People's Cathedral", which had filed the prosecutor's office demanding to be judged by contemporary artists under the Criminal Code?
At the same time, this situation has revealed yet another dangerous symptom. For the first time in the history of modern Russian art and artistic community judged one of its members for its views, dissent. Moreover, the methods are so ugly that they discredit themselves charged. If you follow the logic of the question, could the "ultra-natives" to win the prize Kandinsky, immediately raises the question whether the "Communist" to win the prize Kandinsky? Such as Dmitry Gutov with his painting "Look at the eyes of the bourgeoisie Lenin. Shout "Fascists!" From the mouth Osmolovsky also contradicts his public statements that the artist should be judged by aesthetic laws, and citizen in civilian areas. Then - whether zoophyte, gay, a devout Muslim, Orthodox activist, a crypto-flagellant get my prize? Everyone knows that means pull a quote out of context and oust him from the art of artistic component. It would seem that the group PG, depicting Chinese march on Red Square, calls for the occupation of Russia. A "Blue Noses" in "Kissing Policemen" promoting homosexuality. And the exhibition, which shows the Trotskyist and Stalinist art, violates the moral hygiene of the democratic public.
How to judge the artists - for purely political views? Generally not work with taboo topics? And this religion, power, sex. All deal with abstraction - that is the only correct way, will not hurt anyone! It turned out that the team pay for the right and left, which strongly convey a certain criticism, became a bone of contention. And to judge the artist's best yet for artistic merit. A citizen - the laws of the Constitution.
Passion, whipped around Belyaeva-Gintovt, were the result of displacement of the political public sphere. Now the destiny of art, literature and other areas of culture - a simulation policy.
http://artchronika.ru/item.asp?id=123