Political actionism building a context. Political criticism in art: Olga Grabovskaya on Moscow actionism

Committing coitus with a dirty gypsy in front of people or nailing yourself with the sharpest things from the garden store, drawing a reproductive organ in the middle of a big city or organizing dances in churches - all this is merciless Russian actionism. Whether this can be called is debatable. My comrades, an operetta artist and a violin teacher at the conservatory, once scolded me for awkwardly equating actionism with art.

But another fellow director, foaming at his cracked mouth, argued that this is the best of the arts, since the artist’s self-expression cannot be subject to the evaluative framework of the philistine masses. Simply put, “you don’t understand anything, this is art.” But which one? Acutely social and political? Or can self-expression not be contained within these frameworks? But the actionists themselves do not hide the fact that this is a protest.

It’s just that the recent action of the legendary artist Pavlensky cannot be called anything other than “heroic madness”? What is this: a politically motivated artistic gesture or an attack by an “urban guerrilla” - this will be debated for a long time. Was the game worth the candle - Pavlensky himself will answer this question, giving a resounding slap in the face to perhaps the most powerful organization in the country. It is difficult to understand the artist, and his words immediately after his arrest: “I think that this act should be considered as a gesture in the face of terrorism. This is how I fight terror,” can be interpreted in any way you like. Therefore, instead of analyzing the actions, I suggest you plunge into the crazy history of actionism in the Russian land, full of idiocy, oddities and naked bodies.

Pavlensky as he is

Russia of the tenths is “War”, and Pavlensky. There is no fourth name on the list, but three is quite a lot. Three times more than one, and an infinite number of times more than zero.
– Oleg Kashin –

If we remember the “War” and “pusek” groups with a kind word next time, then it would be a shame not to mention Pavlensky now. An outstanding personality, whatever you say. A man whose balls are literally steel. The most famous “artist” of Russia, before setting the FSB door on fire, became famous for the following actions:
“Seam” - On July 23, 2012, the artist, with his mouth sewn shut with harsh thread, stood at a picket near the Kazan Cathedral for an hour and a half, holding a poster with the inscription: “The Pussy Riot action was a replay of the famous action of Jesus Christ.” To the questions: “Sasha, what the hell!?” - he replied:

By sewing up my mouth against the backdrop of the Kazan Cathedral, I wanted to show the position of the modern artist in Russia: the ban on glasnost. I am disgusted by the intimidation of society, the mass paranoia, manifestations of which I see everywhere.

Then there was “Carcass”. A strange public protest against the suppression of civic activity, intimidation of the population, the growing number of political prisoners, laws on NGOs, 18+ laws, censor laws, the activity of Roskomnadzor, the law on the promotion of homosexuality. Pavlensky, and with him millions of no-names, were ready to prove hoarsely that these laws are not against crime, but against people. As a result, against the backdrop of the St. Petersburg Legislative Assembly, he found himself wrapped in a multi-layered cocoon of barbed wire. The poor police had to cut it with garden shears in order to get to the silent and immobilized Pavlensky. A quick mind will notice the allegory that from the barbed wire the artist fell into the prickly paws of the organs.

And then there was the legendary “Fixation”. A silent artist nailed a scrotum to age-old stones on the icy November paving stones. In a statement, the hero of the occasion wrote: “The naked artist looking at his eggs nailed to the Kremlin paving stones is a metaphor for the apathy, political indifference and fatalism of modern Russian society.”

Sitting naked on the fence of the Institute of Psychiatry named after. Serbsky in Moscow and cutting off his earlobe in protest about the use of psychiatry for political purposes seems secondary, after Van Gogh.
Questions arise: was there another way to show his protest, and how did he not die, it’s cold, and he’s always naked. But if the second can be explained by courage, then the first can only be explained by the artist’s vision and mental disorder.
The most interesting thing is that the artist himself does not classify actionism as art:

I don’t think at all that actionism is directly related to contemporary art. Contemporary art contrasts itself with traditional, classical art. Actionism cannot be classical or modern. Diogenes masturbated in the square - Brener also masturbated. According to Christian mythology, Jesus was nailed to the cross - so Mavromatti nailed himself to the cross. These gestures are timeless... any art is, in principle, political, because the artist is aware of what regime he lives in and what he should do or not do in this regard. And actionism, that is, political art, implies that a person consciously begins to work with the instruments of power. And the purpose of art is liberation practices, the struggle for the embodiment of free thought.

Of course, the word “hero” in the context of what was done seems too strong even for the radical opposition. It's just a phenomenon. Very specific and bold. But if Pavlensky had not asked to change the article of charge from vandalism to terrorism, then his actions would have made sense, and there is enough posturing in ordinary life.

Both those and “E.T.I”

I think it’s very good that there is such a type of contemporary art as actionism. And it’s good that it causes rejection among broad sections of the population, because in general the task of the avant-garde and contemporary art is not to be transparent. In this world of total speeds, absolute transparency and endless chatter there must be some kind of “hardcore”, a core. Contemporary art is this core, and not everyone can handle it. And that's how it should be. And then we need to raise the temperature even more.
– Anatoly Osmolovsky –

Before all sorts of Pussy Riot, NBP and other delights of Russian protest, in the late 80s there was a quite bright group with the characteristic name “E.T.I.” According to Osmolovsky, the movement was invented rather as a model of a youth subculture. The name was chosen from everyday speech, although it stood for “Expropriation of the Territory of Art.” It was famous primarily for its heroes. Osmolovsky is still considered one of the most prominent Russian artists and the leader of Moscow Actionism. Among other things, he starred in the role of a captain who fell victim to the violence of Vladimir Epifantsev, who impregnated his mouth and gave an unforgettable lecture about Pearl Harbor with elements of the bullseye dance. Mavromatti was the producer of this film, and made his mark with his own shares.
Dmitry Pimenov, who tried to visit the mausoleum in knightly armor, but instead visited the madhouse.

Their most striking action took place in the distant and critical year of 1991. The bodies of the participants on the “sacred paving stones” of Red Square laid out the very same three-letter word starting with the letter X, which is not “dick” or “hoy” at all. 14 bodies, there were rumors that the line above the letter “Y” was Shenderovich himself, but Osmolovsky rejected this.
It would seem, what’s wrong with that? There are worse things on schoolchildren’s Instagrams. But the fact is that it was still the Soviet Union, and what is most blasphemous for anyone faithful to the precepts of Ilyich, the action was carried out on the eve of Lenin’s birthday and was interpreted as an attack on his memory.
Although formally the action was timed to coincide with the recently issued law on morality, which, among other things, prohibited swearing in public places.
Osmolovsky argues that the idea of ​​the action (besides its obvious protest meaning) was to combine two signs of opposite status: Red Square as the highest hierarchical geographical point on the territory of the USSR and the most prohibited marginal word.
As for the meaning of the protest, it was a protest against rising prices and the almost physical impossibility of existing and working.
In addition to the well-deserved rays of glory, E.T.I. were charged under Article 206 part 2 “Malicious hooliganism, distinguished in its content by exceptional cynicism or special insolence.” It sounds like a monologue from a movie in a “goblin” translation.

Mavromatti crosses

Coming from those who are “E.T.I.”, the graceful Greek of actionism Oleg Mavromatti in the early 2000s brought moral guardians from the Prosecutor’s Office to white heat, who accused him of inciting interethnic and interreligious hatred. Since then, Oleg Yuryevich has lived in New York and tells extremely interesting things in his unique nasal manner (for example, what substances he dabbled in in the 80s) on his YouTube channel.
What made this intelligent, although not without some oddities, young man so mad? Not by creating the film “Breaks,” in which the genital organ was pierced into an icon and a baby was fucked, but by the action “Don’t Believe Your Eyes.” Held in a place special for such an event - on the territory of the Institute of Cultural Studies of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. First, he was tied to a cross made of boards, after which assistants nailed his hands with 100-millimeter nails. On Mavromatti's bare back, the words "I AM NOT THE SON OF GOD" were carved with a razor. Unlike Jesus Christ, Mavromatti could not stand the torment, and after hours of groaning and suffering he was taken down from the cross.
Mavromatti explained to journalists:

I don’t know a single artist in world cinema who would naturally play pain. This scene symbolizes real suffering, real sacrifice, on which art has long been speculating.

Then, when the authorities began to bring charges against him and confiscated his materials, he left for his wife’s homeland - Bulgaria. By the way, his wife is also an actionist who advocates for women’s rights. Rossa, by the way, is the author of the “Last Valve” campaign. Predicting a society free of gender restrictions, she sewed up her vagina. Such a nice woman.
In exile, Mavromatti remained true to himself: either he would rewrite the Constitution of the Russian Federation with venous blood, or he would invite people who agree that the artist deserves criminal prosecution to shock him online. And recently he edited all the videos of the “Orthodox gay, patriot, your friend and comrade Astakhov Sergius” into one whole film “No Country for Fools,” for which he received many prizes. In Europe they love Russian fools.
By the way, flagellation in the name of protest is an act long forgotten. One crazy Serbian Marina Abramovich (emphasis on the second syllable, and this is important) endlessly castigated herself in front of the people. During the performance “Thomas Lips” (1975), Abramović ate a kilogram of honey and drank a liter of red wine, broke a glass with her hand, cut a five-pointed communist star on her stomach with a razor, whipped herself, and then lay down on a piece of ice in the shape of a cross, pointing it at herself. belly heater.

Actionism is logically developing in the harsh realities of the 21st century, doing the same thing that everyone does that is inaccessible to a simple brain: trying to overcome form and color, the very idea of ​​artistic technique, art has moved on to taboo subjects, and therefore to the body. It is logical that the next step is to overcome the body itself. Only the authorities do not see this as a continuation of the traditions of buffoonery, but see only a threat and direct appeals.
We (except for Dima Enteo, German Sterligov and a good half of the Russian government) understand what benefits, for example, come from scientists who defend new radical hypotheses, or innovative entrepreneurs who risk capital for the sake of vague prospects. Political activists or action artists also have their own function - to question the established order and the magical power of authorities.
But what are these shares worth if they are rejected by the majority? We'll deal with this in the next part.

“When the dialogue ends, everything ends. Therefore, the dialogue, in essence, cannot and should not end.”

Mikhail Bakhtin

Indirect restrictions on human rights suppress freedom more effectively than direct influence from the system. Veiled levers of pressure on the information space, invisible restrictions on civil rights and opportunities have always been an effective weapon. What can be done to counter this hidden threat? The same non-utilitarian methods of struggle that do not fit into the usual framework of social or political resistance, a confrontation that takes on new non-traditional forms.

Political actionism emerged in the 1960s as a new form of protest and radical gesture. One of the reasons for the appearance of this or that action is not simply the presence of a problem, but the fact that people live with this problem, reconciled with the circumstances. Actionism is criticism. Not necessarily criticism of art, but definitely criticism using artistic methods. Using visual images and actively speculating on them, the actionist talks about social institutions, politics or society as a whole. He deconstructs the fabric of social reality, going beyond the artistic field, but remaining within the artistic form. The action not only destroys the decorated reality, but also diagnoses the social and political impasse into which society has entered and from which it does not want to get out.

Actionism loses the need to produce a material product, because the very form of expression is a protest against the capitalist system into which art is drawn, against its institutionalization and formalization, against the meaningless production of artifacts. The German sociologist Georg Simmel wrote that the aesthetic is the material embodiment of the symbolic - a kind of static form that can be observed and experienced. In actionism, the artist himself becomes such a form. Born from the specifics of the social and political, the action is framed in a visual image, erasing the usual boundaries between the work and the author.

Consciously or not, actionism produces the Marxist idea of ​​art, which should become not contemplation, but an “instrument of struggle.” According to Marxism, a devaluation of the category of beauty is necessary, which gives a person nothing but a substitute for reality. But Marxism, like any political movement, considers the artist only as an ideological tool, an instrument for maintaining the necessary order. Actionism, on the contrary, rejects subordination to any ideology or leader, not allowing art to serve the regime, plunging into conjuncture and decorativeness.

Actionism as something that does not fit into the framework of the traditional understanding of art, something that seeks to undermine social norms, expand not only the boundaries of art, but also the boundaries of public consciousness, disturb the peace of both the citizen and the state, is perceived by society as abnormal, alien, wild.

For many, actionism causes rejection and disgust. Is it possible that it frightens not because it is disgusting, terrible and it is difficult to discern aesthetics in it, but because actionism reveals things that one does not want to see? One of the main questions in Oscar Wilde’s philosophical reflections is: “Is it possible to have a purely aesthetic interest in the disease from which you are dying?” In the context of modern actionism, the answer may be that the artist uses aesthetic language to discover and describe a fatal disease, so that someone else can then perform more radical surgical manipulations on it. For example, the actions of Russian actionists are built on destroying myths about the well-being of Russian society and exposing the real motives and actions of the authorities, exposing the totalitarianism of the modern state.

Actionism happens when nothing happens. It appears from active actions on the part of the state regime and active inaction on the part of society. In a social system there must always be a dialogue: between the people and the authorities, between people and social institutions. The dialogue should be equal when both sides take part in it. It may be physical or mental, taking the form of clashes or debates, revolutions or elections. Penetration, as a result of which both participants are changed.

Actionism, like any other cultural or social action, is based on dialogue - meaningful and deep, the result of which should lead to certain consequences. This is a conversation between the artist and the authorities, where society is not an active subject, but an observer.

Actionism is possible when inaction and passivity become fundamental in the life of society. And if there is no dialogue between the authorities and the “opposition,” then the artist takes upon himself the courage and responsibility of the first word. The artist begins his action, for which the state, in turn, “gives” or does not “give” permission.

Courts, arrests, surveillance - the methods by which the authorities allegedly intimidate and suppress the next “outburst” of an actionist are only part of the game. The need to follow protocol pushes the authorities to respond, because if there is a precedent, the system is obliged to respond to it - law enforcement and judicial authorities must justify their existence, support laws, and maintain public hygiene. The active steps of the system become a catalyst for the response actions of the other side. A game for the sake of a game, where the artist plays the noble role of an irreconcilable fighter against the system, and the state obediently plays the role of a whipping boy, thus keeping a favorable opponent on the competition map. After all, if you neutralize an artist, then a stronger opponent may come in his place, who may become more dangerous for the state.

An actionist in Ukrainian reality today is a failed imitator of reality. And if Russian actionism has always been characterized by confrontation between the artist and the state or censure from other social institutions, then Ukrainian actionism will most likely become a conflict between the artist and a person passing by, who has become an unwilling spectator. The absolute paternalistic relations between the state and society in Russia have fostered the habit of counting on the fact that the problem will always be fixed by the elder. The reaction to the next action is not bewilderment or shyly hidden eyes, but conscious inaction, supported by the confidence that the state will immediately respond and solve all the inconveniences. The Ukrainian public is no longer ready to afford such a luxury, so even the situation with an artist who suddenly bursts into public space will be decided by everyone in their own way.

An artist, especially an action artist, vitally needs attention. Public censure, active discussions in the media, actions from the penitentiary system - without all this, the action will disappear the moment it appears. The reaction must be heterogeneous, categorical, and massive. These are the necessary tools that society places in the hands of the artist to complete his work. Will Ukrainian society today be able to give them to at least one artist? After all, such a situation is only possible during times of public apathy and stagnation, which give the artist the opportunity to act, the system to respond, and the public to observe what is happening, which is absolutely impossible in modern Ukraine.

Artivism and actionism June 6th, 2011

Speaking about the work of activist art groups of the 2000s (Agenda, Affinity, Grandma after the funeral, Bombs, War, Vegetables.Net, PG, What to do) in comparison with what the Moscow actionists of the nineties did (Brener, Kulik, Mavromatti, Osmolovsky) we can state that that art has become more politicized and interactive.

Affinity Group, 2010. “Nazis eat shawarma in secret”

If earlier we saw an artist whose statements generate social and political meanings, now we are dealing with rather secretive teams of politicians and social technologists using artistic means. It is proposed to call this new cultural phenomenon for Russia artivism. This term is convenient to use to refer to the artistic activism of the second half of the 2000s.

This note attempts to outline the differences between Moscow actionism of the nineties and artivism of the 2000s.

Policy

The most important leitmotif of the creativity of the actionists of the nineties was survival. Oleg Kulik's dog performances were a convincing metaphor for the situation in which Soviet people found themselves after the shock neoliberal reforms - the image of a domestic dog thrown into the street.

Alexander Brener, Oleg Kulik, 1994. “The last taboo guarded by a lonely Cerberus”

But when creating metaphors for what was happening in the country, action artists did not set themselves political goals, but expressed existential states ranging from euphoria to complete despair, including masochism, fight against God, etc.

Perhaps the most representative action of the nineties is the joint action of Alexander Brener and Oleg Kulik “The last taboo guarded by a lonely Cerberus,” when Kulik threw himself at passers-by and cars, and Brener shouted “In a mediocre country!” The manifested meaning of this action was the protection of art, which is the very last Taboo that the lonely Cerberus volunteered to protect in our long-suffering country, which supposedly only art can save from mediocrity and other troubles. Commenting on the truth, not this action, but the scandal at Interpol, Slavoj Zizek said that in this way artists demonstrate their right to transgression. Transgression of artistic gesture.

Anton Nikolaev, 1993, "Slogan"

In retrospect, it is clear that in this way Moscow actionism outlined its horizon in the political. Protecting the borders of art is the only clear political strategy of the actionists of the nineties. The artivists began their journey into society as open space from the place where the actionists left off, obediently heeding the imperative of “not getting involved” in politics, which they uncritically accepted from the previous generation of conceptual artists.

As for the strategies of artivism, a fairly wide spectrum has already been defined, from the “cognitive terrorism” of “War” and Loskutov, who makes sense of ideological and propaganda machines using subversive affirmation strategies, to positive social strategies, setting specific political goals: decentralization of the country and development of regions “Bombed”, protection of minorities and socially vulnerable groups (Evgeniy Flor, Moscow “War”), building communism (“What to do?”), etc.

Non-governmental commission, 1998. "Against everyone"

It is important to note that at the turn of the nineties and zeros, several attempts were made to create art close to modern artivism: several initiatives by Anatoly Osmolovsky (Radek, Non-Governmental Commission, Against Everyone) and “(Moscow Union of Radical Artists)” by Evgeniy Flor. But, unfortunately, due to severe persecution by the FSB, all these undertakings were cut short. Artists, we note, are no longer afraid of this. We haven't heard from Flora for several years. Osmolovsky publicly abandoned political actionism and began promoting high modernism. Now he goes to the Seliger Forum and accuses the imprisoned artistes of not being artists.

It is important to note that the actionists of the nineties rarely declared their opposition. They tended to perceive Yeltsin's liberal reformers as allies. Artists clearly oppose the “bloody Putin regime” and set themselves the goal of dismantling it, using any non-violent methods.

Language problem

An important motive of the actionists was the creation of a new language in a situation of languagelessness, the vagueness of the surrounding situation, too new and unexpected to be oriented linguistically. Enormous efforts were spent on creating discursive packaging. A language was created in which it would be possible to talk about things that were not talked about in the Russian tradition. In particular about actionism. This was largely determined by the need to fit into the Western context, largely into the tradition laid down by the previous generation of conceptual artists.

Bombs, 2007. "Slogan"

Now these attempts seem naive, and the art historical texts of those times are terribly overloaded and boring. Apparently, they seemed about the same to the majority of readers of the Segodnya newspaper (the main mouthpiece of the Soviet society in the 90s), who, when buying a newspaper, took out the page of the “Culture” section and sent it to the trash bin without reading it. The “Art Journal” did not reach the general public, but it was painful to read even for participants in the artistic process.

Modern artivists (with the possible exception of “What is to be done?”, who spend a lot of time and effort creating and maintaining decorative leftist discourse) refuse to create their own languages, expropriating the languages ​​of those social environments and media, that is, areas of society as outer space, where artistists are constantly demolished.

Artistic actions tend to be political gestures. The languages ​​they speak are politicized pidgins, intuitively understood by representatives of a wide range of political and social groups. Only a subtle accent reminds of connections with the art of the nineties.

Tradition

The main merit of the actionists of the nineties is that, starting from scratch, they made this unprecedented method of artistic action popular and interesting to society. There was too much of a gap with the artistic experiments of Russian avant-garde artists at the beginning of the century to allow one to talk about roots. I would say that the emergence of actionism came from the spontaneous gesture of the late Grisha Gusarov and the current Seliger regular Anatoly Osmolovsky, who then, a few months before the collapse of the Soviet Union, dragged their comrades to Red Square to lay out with their bodies three letters “FUCK” in front of the mausoleum. Oleg Kulik helped organize the action. This important event for the early nineties awakened Alexander Brener and Oleg Mavromatti.

THESE, 1991, "These-text"

Apparently, actionism generally arises during turbulent periods of history. It is worth recalling the outbursts of foolishness during the period of the reactionary Russian revival (Vadim Kozhinov’s term) or the artistic experiments of the Russian avant-garde, born in revolutionary storms. But be that as it may, the actionists of the nineties did not correlate with previous eras. Artivists already had and developed the tradition laid down by Moscow actionism and find similar phenomena in history and relate to them. When “Voina” and I lived in a basement on Svobody Street and discussed upcoming actions, frequent arguments were “Brener (Mavromatti, Kulik, Osmolovsky) would have done this.”

The role of terrorism

The destruction of two towers by Muslim terrorists of the World Trade Center dramatically changed the optics of perception of contemporary art in the world. If earlier an artist using public artistic and paratheatrical practices could only allow himself to be correlated only with the history of art, now he inevitably gets stuck in the semantic fields associated with terrorism. And by the way, it’s the other way around (the story with composer Karl Stockhausen). Any high-profile action by current artists in the media is inevitably associated with terrorist attacks. Any talk about how it fits into the tradition of art is relegated to the background and can only give rise to additional meanings.

It is no coincidence that Dartmoort University professor Mikhail Gronas, who described the activities of “Bombill” and “War,” proposed using the term “cognitive terrorism.” Those. artists, with the help of symbolic violence, achieve similar media effects to those that terrorists achieve with the help of subjective violence (Slavoj Žižek’s term).

This sharply distinguishes the situation in the nineties from the situation in the 2000s, when there were bandits instead of terrorists. The actionists lived in a time of violent gang wars for property, but this reality did not particularly concern the artists. Construction of the art market occupied them more.

Representation

Despite the fact that the actions of actionists and artivists are similar in appearance, they use different strategies of expression (representation). The representation of the actionists came down directly to the action itself, the product of the artivists - to the author’s report on the Internet and is always an injection of information into the media environment, which should cause a strong reaction and subsequent discussion. In artistic teams there is often a “specialist in fine discursive tuning” who shakes up the media environment, provoking it to react and generate additional meanings. It is safe to say that artivism is interactive.

Actionism did not have this - it was focused on an artistic, narrowly professional environment. Although it must be admitted that Oleg Kulik’s ability to work with media largely anticipated the interactivity of the next generation of artists, who made it their representational strategy.

Washing out the meaning

Bombs, 2007 "BPH"

The media-political system created over the last “new stagnation” decade has made any direct political statement impossible, which is immediately “packed” into marginal covers in line with the strategy of countering the “expansion of the minority” proposed to the Kremlin in the early 2000s by political strategist Gleb Pavlovsky.

Paradoxically, in order to be heard, it is necessary to say something meaningless, or rather meaningless, hacking the internal mechanisms of propaganda machines that effectively channel any positive statements from below.

It is no coincidence that media artivists (primarily “Voina” and Artem Loskutov) actively use subversive affirmation strategies (see), which cause an extremely nervous reaction from the authorities and turn out to be effective, which helps artivists penetrate the media, including those loyal to the authorities.

This situation is specific to artivism. Actionism, fearful of entering open society and living in the strange information field of tabloid newspapers and specialized highly intellectual publications about contemporary art, did not encounter these problems.

At this point it would be logical to sum up the results and make forecasts for the development of artivism in Russia. But it is too early to do this, despite the fact that expectations are associated with this cultural phenomenon.

Art actionism: the art of provocation and the art of responding to provocation

There have always been people who did not like power, and they always had different ways of expressing themselves. Performance and actionism as its specific concentrated form were apparently born in the tenth years of the 20th century. Then the action was directed not against the personified government, but against the mood of society. Hence the “Slap in the Face of Public Taste”, the actions of the futurists, who did not care at all about the personalities of Nicholas II’s ministers. In the 1930s, this movement practically died down in Europe - a battle was unfolding between totalitarian states, and the world had no time for artistic actions. Although the early surrealists allowed themselves all sorts of tricks. By the way, the European word “action” has a wonderful Russian analogue - trick. It is very ambiguous: he went out into public, lost his temper and showed everyone. In this word there is something Rabelaisian-folk, Bakhtinian, spontaneous, spontaneous, when a person does not think strategically, does not care about the consequences: he would like to give out something that will penetrate everyone to the gut.

The heyday of Western actionism, its golden days, occurred at the end of the 50s and 60s: it was a struggle against relapses of totalitarian thinking - hence Viennese actionism. And the fight for everything: from women's rights to the rights of minorities in America. In the States at that time, everything was mixed up - the rights for women’s identity, and movements against the Vietnam War, and against the fact that bourgeois capitalists sat on the boards of directors of major museums of modern art. Later, the Guerilla girls did great performances. It was in the 60s that contemporary art began to receive mass support in Western society and entered the arena of political struggle precisely then.

Guerilla girls - against gender and racial inequality

In fact, Russia only entered transnational art in the 90s, where these actions have long become an integral part of artistic life. By that time, only the group “Collective Actions” had been active for a long time (since 1976), but its participants existed in their own circle, hidden from society, their rather esoteric artistic activity was concentrated on the mechanisms of perception of art.

Political actionism in our country arose during the years of Gorbachev’s perestroika and flourished in the early 90s (although there were precedents - I remember the smart Leningrad actions of I. Zakharov-Ross, in which the political was mixed with the existential). In fact, actionism is not always associated with political confrontation. Actionism is a form of active, sharp, provocative, catchy art that attracts attention and destroys stereotypes - behavioral, religious, political, psychological. It is always directed against some hardened system that has lost its dynamics and against its guardians. After all, security is not only a political matter. Political actionism - yes, it is aimed at the vulnerabilities of the political system, which in the eyes of artists require ridicule and ostracism. But there are other types of actionism, aimed at stereotypes of consciousness, behavior, everyday culture, etc. Moreover, there is actionism, I would say, introverted: the artist turns to himself, struggles with something within himself. “With whom did his struggle take place? With myself, with myself." In all directions, actionism encounters resistance from guardians, again from various “specializations”: political, religious, moral and ethical, etc.

The peak of our artistic actions came in the mid-1990s, when the actions of Oleg Kulik and A. Brener appeared. Kulik is a wonderful and subtle master of performance and action. I note that his famous “dog” actions were of a social-existential nature, causing negative reactions to himself (the artist worked primarily with his own body, likening himself to a dog). Prosperous visitors to high-status exhibitions were frightened by the artist’s aggressiveness and the fervor with which he played the role of a dog. He truly “bit into” the normal Western art establishment, protesting against the relationship that had developed within it between the artist and the consumer, the buyer of art. For our art, which survived a long and sad period of nationalization and was enthusiastically included in the transnational art market, this was a serious warning that was not perceived in time.

During these years, actionism also entered the openly political field: a party of insects and animals was quite seriously created and “signatures” were collected in the form of paw prints and wings, in another action the president was challenged to a boxing match, etc. The government of that time, we must give it its due, did not respond in any way. Apparently there was enough humor.

A decade later, a St. Petersburg group was created "What to do"- according to the templates of the Western legal left, who talk a lot about the workers’ struggle, but avoid real aggravations. Accordingly, the group is more in demand and understandable in the West. But in general, actionism is not so developed in St. Petersburg. But we have a group called “War” (unstable in composition and, as it seems to me, in aspirations). The action with the bridge and the phallus painted on it is remarkably crazy and at the same time rooted in tradition. Dropping your pants in front of the authorities is in the traditions of Russian laughter culture, this is straight out of M. Bakhtin. Yes, and Pushkin can be remembered:

Without giving a glance
The stronghold of fatal power,
He stood proudly towards the fortress
backwards:
Don't spit in the well, my dear.

But here’s what’s interesting: this action, for all its literally naked provocativeness, did not cause such public tension as the subsequent one carried out by Pussy Riot. Apparently because there was no personal offensiveness in it.

Now in Russia the processes of social disunity and split are growing, including along the lines of progressivism and security. These processes, alas, are associated with a mutual simplification of culture, both artistic and political. It’s a simplification to divide culture into protective and progressive - revolutionary, subversive, etc. Simplification and to assume that political actionism is the vanguard of contemporary art, sinless in terms of art, if only because of its militant nature.

There are also consequences of this simplification. A very simple thing is forgotten: an action artist is not a political activist. These are, with all the reservations, different professions. Mixing the roles leads to a sad result: whoever hurts, pinches, and debunks the most is the best artist. Not this way. The sculptor A. Matveev cleverly said: for such and such (insert yourself) reason, you should not disturb the sculpture. What is more dangerous is that the great simplification is also behind the reaction of the other side. Authorities, guardians, a certain part of society. In general, any government does not like actionism. And the “silent majority” too. It was the same in New York, it’s just that the United States passed this milestone earlier, and we are just starting to pass. The authorities reacted painfully to the actions (antics) of political actionists: both Kusama and the Guerilla girls were also arrested for violating something. Another thing is that they were arrested, fined, and in the worst case, sentenced to a day or two. But they did not take revenge out of punishment, although their zealous guards were also ready there.

Why? I think there was a tradition in society of understanding the real role and possibilities of art that wanted to be politically active. (Alas, due to historical circumstances, we do not have such a tradition; on the contrary, art was subject to impossible fighting obligations, expressed at least in rhetoric, to be a weapon... of the party, state, etc.) This understanding is unassuming, but the only reasonable one. The artist is a political actionist - not a fighter, not an urban guerrilla, not a terrorist attacker. He is, at best, a messenger. He conveys a message, expressed in artistic form, about painful and dangerous points (again, dangerous from the point of view of some reference social groups).

Actionism is a message that can be accepted by the authorities and/or other parts of society or not. But punishing the messenger is something archaic. At least for our world (there are countries where, God forbid, they kill for cartoons). Once again: artists - political actionists - are diagnosticians, not a plague; they are messengers of events, and not the events themselves (This is worth remembering not only for the guardians, but also for the artists themselves). Unfortunately, today's reality shows the increasing role of the great simplification. Take the letter from “historians” about Repin’s painting - its authors perceive art literally, as a historical reality! Killed - didn't kill! This is how small children or teenagers perceive drawings and fairy tales. From this letter, by the way, you can make a wonderful performance: “Remove Ivan the Terrible from the museum”! Laugh? Take offense? Fight?

Among the tools of modern art, whether we like it or not, there is such a weapon as provocation. Not important. Art is not limited to provocation. But it is also mandatory - often, especially in the case of political actionism, without this tool it is not possible to prepare the ground for the perception of the message. But there is something else - the art of smartly responding to this provocativeness.

There is an old joke: a young puppy is brought into the laboratory of physiologist Pavlov, and the old dog, who has seen everything, instructs him: “You see, there’s a button. If you want to eat, you press: these guys in white coats bring food right away. They call it a conditioned reflex!” It's time to abandon the conditioned reflex. No, not security - no one has the right to deny people the right to traditionalism and conservatism of consciousness and behavior. It's time to abandon the reflex of great simplification. Artistic actionism presses a certain button. It is not at all necessary to feed him according to this signal. But to be afraid to the point of bullying? Fall on him with the full force of the state machine? It's enough to listen. Or not to hear.