Why does the state need culture

At the end of winter, disputes about Russian culture, its condition, problems, tasks and requests intensified.

It is not easy to discuss the so-called Piotrovsky-Kalyagin-Matsuev amendment to the Constitution. Does the state commit itself to protecting culture - all? Which one? Why?

February 20 no less difficult issues (in particular, religious topics in contemporary art) were announced at the Patriarchal Council for Culture.

The 28th public council under our Duma committee will discuss the reloading of relations between society and culture and the role that the state can play here.

Finally, we are moving towards March 25, the main meeting of the Presidential Council on Culture and Art of the year.

So let's think: why does the state need culture?

The leading development resource of any country is the mutual trust of citizens. What we have today is in serious shortage. The ability to forgive mistakes, to share responsibility, not to look everywhere for deception, cunning, a back thought and a second bottom, especially if they are not, is the result of working with the human soul. The upbringing of feelings, the softening of morals, that worldly wisdom that keeps a person from radical actions, resistance to manipulation and destructive propaganda - all this is best formed precisely by the forces of art.

We like current cultural figures or not, we have no other universal workers in the field. In a modern multinational and multiconfessional country, no tradition, folk or religious, is universal. Accordingly, culture is a leader in maintaining the mental health of the nation, creating a favorable social climate. It calls directly to emotions - unlike slogans and appeals, which are filtered out by the mind.

It is enough not to neglect this potential of culture, so that a change of mood in society, an increase in civic harmony become noticeable even without special sociological measurements.

It is known that human satisfaction and dissatisfaction with life are measured on different scales. To remove the specific causes of dissatisfaction (increase salaries, establish benefits, improve living conditions, etc.) does not mean at all to ensure satisfaction. Then “fluid” criteria come into play: a sense of one's own demand, a level of self-realization, pride or shame for the society in which you live.

This is where the fundamental, qualitative difference between culture and other social programs is laid.

Social Media eliminates the factors of dissatisfaction. Culture pumps a sense of contentment. The first without the second is Sisyphus labor, a painful and costly struggle against the countercurrent of eternal discontent. It is impossible to solve absolutely all problems. But you can change the attitude of at least some of them. Art is a chance to turn consciousness, expand horizons.

The emotional state of a person is largely connected not with how well he is today, but with expectations from tomorrow - there is hope or not. The same can be said about peoples and states. This is the secret of the enduring charm of Soviet art. We are turning to the same thing for the hundredth time, because we remember: there was hope. That she deceived us, we also remember, but much weaker ...

Because of this, old songs are endlessly re-chased, legendary films are re-shot, and the continuation of favorite cartoons is announced; actors copy the idols of past years, spending under the guise of another person the years allotted to find their own face.

A powerful industry of exploitation of the Soviet heritage is operating. Emotional memory makes us return again and again to where we felt good. Nostalgia blocks the analytical ability of our brain. We grab onto the legacy like crutches, instead of drawing conclusions for the future.

For culture, the main conclusion, in my opinion, is this: there is no need to teach people. It is necessary to charm him.

Hollywood did not invent anything new in comparison with Soviet cinema (or Soviet cinema - in comparison with Hollywood): the best American films, like the best Soviet films, talk about the choice between good and evil, about becoming a person, overcoming obstacles, sacrifice, unity; they try to arouse a sense of pride in their country, increase their mood, possibly keeping humor within the framework of good taste, and in the final they openly press on the lacrimal glands.

God knows why we use this win-win toolkit so modestly. Those rare domestic paintings, after which the viewer wants to live, and not lie, with their nose buried in the wall, collect a brilliant cash register. And to focus on supporting just such projects (not nominally “patriotic”, but difficult, talented, life-affirming) is useful from all points of view.

Culture is effective when it serves national ideals. For all the variety of political views, these ideals are identical for most Russians: justice, selflessness, breadth of soul, kindness, love, forgiveness, wisdom ... We must cultivate and promote in art everything that enhances spiritual harmony, creates a sense of security, harmony among people, heart joy.

It is the state that is able to act as a buffer between culture and society, zeroing out extremes on both sides, covering the culture from activists of various degrees of adequacy, providing a “talented social order” (as Maximilian Voloshin put it).

It is the state that should calmly but firmly promote civilized norms: the global information space is one today, everything is in the public domain. By prohibitions we can only damage those values ​​for which we advocate. The sad fate of a country where public morality has to be regulated manually. No need to be afraid of culture, no need to demonize it - after all, it is primarily a source of many joys. Culture is not localized exclusively in theaters, museums and philharmonic societies. This is all that shapes the human soul. To love your own parents, there is no need to hate strangers. It is not necessary to prohibit someone else's, but to increase one's own.

It is clear that the provocative art space in Russia is narrowing. Actions aimed at consciously insulting traditional values, aimed at shocking for the sake of shocking, occur less and less. Consequently, the marginal forms of "criticism" - disruption of events, fights, scattering of sewage and so on. - must be a thing of the past. You need to understand that evaluating the results of creativity is a complex and delicate process. The calls to delegate this assessment to various public associations (not creative unions) are fraught with the imposition of amateurism and ideological excesses.

Of course, it is necessary to build a dialogue between culture and society. However, this should be a dialogue - on an equal footing and with mutual respect, and not an advantage given by one to judge others.

The creative community is the environment that is ideologically the most saturated and at the same time ideologically the most labile, unstable, heterogeneous. It is necessary to pull to your side, into the niche of quiet loyalty, all who can be pulled. The most effective way for this is for cultural figures, like Chekhov’s Kashtanka, to respond to the word “talent”. The maximum attention of the profession, the minimum - the views, public statements and other husk.

The emphasis on the ideological component in dialogue with culture is futile. Moreover, it leads to anecdotal incidents when some “patriots” are faced with others (a fresh example is the situation at the Gorky Moscow Art Theater), and this “intra-camp” disagreement only fuels social skepticism.

I would venture to say that many schisms in modern Russian society are not ideological, but aesthetic. So, with the creators you need to talk primarily from the standpoint of artistic truth. Moreover, a talented person can change his views. Unfortunately, we will not make a person with the right views talented ...

Dreams of cultural figures who will spend days in prayer and drill are naive at best. These were neither Pushkin, nor Tolstoy, nor Dostoevsky, nor Vysotsky, nor Shukshin. No artist sits at a desk or in a director’s chair with the thought: “Now I will create a work full of traditional spiritual and moral values.” And if he sits down, it means that this is not an artist, but a conjuncturist or graphomaniac.

Cultural workers do not want to go in line and chant approved over the speech - and do not. Their task is not to march, their task is to create, relatively speaking, marches under which others want to live, work, love children, protect their parents, and help their neighbor. The artist does not have to be the most moral, the most heroic. But he can create images full of morality, heroism, patriotism and humanity. It is very important to remember what we expect from culture, and not to stray from the highway to the side of the road.

The creative community needs a constant trusting relationship with the state. This will make it possible to relieve tension in time, to extinguish conflict situations in the bud or to get out of them with dignity, to identify the main pain points of society and to formulate the most relevant topics, preparing ahead for the dates that are significant for society. And subject to the competence of government representatives - even contribute to the generation of creative ideas and the development of an artistic language that is close to the whole of society.

A similar conversation is possible on any of the available sites, since there are enough of them. Culture has never been and never will be a monopolar world - neither in the sense of authority, nor in relation to governance.

For example, a public council under our Duma committee was created precisely for this purpose. Although lawmaking is a dark matter for most cultural figures, they are happy to maintain a substantive conversation. At the same time, according to my ideas, if an artist agrees to come to the State Duma to discuss sensitive issues here, he already demonstrates a sufficient degree of loyalty. Nothing more is needed. Everything above this is superfluous and only interferes with the work.

Participating in disputes about the relationship of culture with society and the state, preparing for the upcoming difficult discussions, I consciously and confidently emphasize the word “dialogue”. Speak (not just with like-minded people). Listen (and not only those whose words you enjoy). Remember that people are united not by appeals and slogans, but by common tears and a common smile. Improving the quality of tears and laughter is a cultural task and a state interest.

The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.