"Bulldozer Exhibition" - 35

[sss]

Сообщение от ranzher

Is the threat to the regime those artists who have become spokespersons for the twelve exhibitors Bulldozer exhibition? Of course not! Even with the hint of a threat to the state would be erased them in powder. What made it decisively and with regard to those dissenters who were perceived as ideological enemies.
Meanwhile, it condoned mischief of these artists. They could write what they wanted and were free to sell their work ..

You are confusing sequence))
The trick lies in the fact that dissidents could also write whatever they wanted, up until not published their desires. Ideological enemies, they became only after publication.
So the artists, which condoned, leaving their basements on the public, the potential threat is even represented.

With regards to the statement "could easily sell their work, let me know where? In the bazaar? For such a "prodavanie" if it occurred outside the formal sites (hudfondy, hudsalony, etc., where these people entry was ordered), gave the term (especially if you figured currency).

Сообщение от ranzher

SINYAVSKY said that he had with the Soviet authorities purely stylistic differences. At the informal leader of the unofficial artists Oscar Rabin did not even have any.
Look at his paintings of those years. With a picturesque point of view - it is quite ordinary MOSH, closer to its left wing. No subversive innovation. For others it will be more abruptly. Take the same artists "severe style". They then, as time and a little afraid of little gifts of nomenclature CX.
State did not suit the plot O. Rabin.

Why maloodarennoy nomenclature CX care is given only on the purely artistic merits or demerits of painting? Does nomenclature was ideologically independent and free? As a representative of the state, it is equally interested and so as depicted, and so what is depicted.
And what to Sinyavsky ended his stylistic differences with the Soviet regime - is well known.
---

Сообщение от ranzher

... opportunities to exhibit in a public exhibition spaces, the meaning was ostensibly a demonstration to Belyaev wasteland.

Why "supposedly"?

Сообщение от ranzher

All participants were aware of the action of the realities of the time and that such demonstrations are not desired by the state to get ...

What kind of "desirable" in question, if the fact of the exhibition and was an end in itself? This, incidentally, wrote and humorist Vladimir Vorobyov: "Show proscribed, persecuted art publicly - that was the zest, the blow with a strong political protest.

Сообщение от ranzher

... and realized that the hard consequences will not come. In such a case from their side it was a well-planned provocation, where the most important role was assigned to the Western press.

Just do understand that harsh consequences could occur, and for less harmless disobedience, therefore, invited the foreign press, not only to highlight the event, but somehow protect themselves in the future.
What is the provocation - it is not clear. Moreover, the failure (in the exhibition) of the Moscow City Council did not follow.
---

If we are talking about what happened, how about the performance, then get him not artists, and the authorities, not knowing how to prevent that from the standpoint of the Constitution was not subject to the ban. Sunday ... Void ... paintings ... What ban? Dissent? What is it manifested? There was: it was unofficial, it was persecuted.

And if we talk about the artists, the exhibition on a vacant lot Belyaev - certainly act.