December 1, 1962 - 50 years ago the opening of the exhibition "30 years of the Moscow Union." And few were prepared to have a formal ceremony that report-planned event and will be a historic turning point for the artistic process in the country

Arena. December 1, 1962 Diagram exposure

50 years ago, the opening of the exhibition "30 Years of the Moscow Union." And few were prepared to have a formal ceremony that report-planned event and will be a historic turning point for the artistic process in the country. On the background of the events recalled party Manezh exhibition Vladimir Yankilevsky in his text "Arena. December 1, 1962 » 1 .

visit Khrushchev and his entourage exhibition arena of 1 December 1962 was skillfully prepared the Academy of Arts culmination "chetyrehgolosoy Fugue", played by Soviet life. The four "voices»:

First: The general atmosphere of Soviet life, the political process of de-Stalinization, which began after the Twentieth Party Congress, which gave impetus to the liberalization of moral society, "thaw" by Ehrenburg and simultaneously sharpened the struggle for power and influence among the heirs of Stalin and a young generation in all sectors of Soviet society, the infrastructure is not changed and no longer meet the new trends in real life. Big bosses and local officials were in some disarray and confusion in front of new developments, and did not know how to react to previously unthinkable publication of books and articles on the exhibition of contemporary Western art (at the World Youth Festival in 1957 in Moscow, the American industrial exhibition, Picasso at the Pushkin Museum). What one hand banned, others allow.

Second, this is an official artistic life completely controlled by the Ministry of Culture of the USSR and the Academy of Arts, a stronghold of socialist realism and the main consumer of the national budget for art. However the Academy became the object of ever-increasing public criticism for glorifying Stalin cult, for distortion and embellishment picture of real life. Special danger to himself academics saw revitalized by young artists of the Union, which frankly was to demonstrate in their opposition to the spirit of the time of the Academy. All this created a panic among academics. They were afraid of losing their power and influence, and their privileges, of course, first of all the material.

third voice - a new trend among the young members of the Union of artists and their growing influence in the struggle for power in infrastructure of the Union of Artists and the Academy. This young generation, influenced by the changed moral climate, was to find ways to represent the "truth of life" that later became known as "severe style". This manifested itself in greater thematic freedom, but with deadlock problems in the visual language. Grown in nurseries conservative academic institutions, in the tradition of the realistic school of the late nineteenth century, completely divorced from the real life of the modern art of the West, they are aesthetically and intellectually could not tear myself away from the school and made timid attempts to embellish the "corpse", such as his squalid estetizirovat extinct specimens poorly assimilated post-Cézanne or some homebrew pseudo decorativism or bad taste stylized ancient art. It all looked very provincial.

Being in the formal structure of Soviet art and being embedded in its hierarchy, they have held positions in various committees and vystavkomah the habit of the system of state support (free creative giving , regular public procurement of works from exhibitions and from the workshops, creative assignment, publications and monographs at the public expense, and many other advantages and benefits, not simply snivshiesya Soviet hard worker, blood ties which these artists continuously stressed). In them the way to their successors, academics, and saw a threat to their power waning.

Finally, the fourth "voice fugue" - is an independent and unaffiliated art by young artists who made their life as best they could and made art that they could not officially revealed, as all the exposition areas were under the control of the Union of Artists and the Academy, nor officially sell for the same reasons. They could not even buy paint and materials to work with, because they were sold only on membership card of the Union of Artists. As such, these artists were secretly declared "illegal" and were the most persecuted and disenfranchised part of the artistic medium, or rather, just thrown out of it. Characteristically angry and indignant resentment of one of the apologists of the "severe style" MOSKh P. Nikonov , expressed by him in a speech to the ideological to the Central Committee meeting at the end of December 1962 (after the show in the Arena) in relation to, as he put it, "those dudes", "I am not so much surprised by the fact that For example, with belyutintsami in one room were displayed work and Andronov . I was surprised that my work there. Not why we went to Siberia. Not that I went along with geologists in the unit, not hired for that work there. Not for this Vasnetsov very seriously and consistently working on the question of form, which for him are needed in its further growth. Not for that we carried their products to be hanged together with his work, which, in my opinion, nothing to do with painting have. " Looking 40 years ahead, I note that in the permanent exhibition "Art of the twentieth century" in the Tretyakov Gallery is now my job to "Dialogue" in 1961 and "geology" hang in the same room (which, perhaps, he is very unhappy).

Another quote from his speech: "This is a false sensational art, it does not go the right way, and looking for loopholes and trying to address their works not to the professional public, where they were to have a fitting welcome and condemnation, and addressed to those aspects of life that have nothing to do with serious issues of painting do not have ».

P. Nikonov, already a member vystavkoma and "chief" in MOSH, knew that all the way to the professional public through the exhibition halls were cut off for us, but still, not knowing our products, "professional public" was ready for a "worthy meeting "and" condemnation ».

trend, despite the ignorance of style and complete mess in my head, is obvious: we (the" severe style ") - the good, the true Soviet artists, and they (" belyutintsy, "as he called all the others, making no difference between the Studio Belutin and independent artists) - bad, false and anti-Soviet, and please, dear Ideological Commission, do not confuse us with them. Must beat "them" and not "us." Who beat and for what? I at that time was 24, I had just graduated from Moscow Printing Institute. I had no studio, I rented a room in a communal apartment. I did not have money for materials, and I stole the night in the courtyard of crates from the furniture shop to have stretchers. I worked during the day on their own stuff, and at night doing book covers, to earn a little money. Things I did at that time, I have shown in the Arena. This is - a six-meter pentaptih № 1 "nuclear power plant" (now in the Museum Ludwig in Cologne), three-meter triptych number 2 "two principles" (now in the Museum of the Zimmerli in the U.S.), and a series of oils "Theme and Improvisation».

«Them" - Independent Artists in Moscow was only two or three dozen, and they were of different directions depending on their culture and outlook on life, philosophy, and aesthetic preferences. To continue the traditions of the Russian avant-garde of the century, Surrealism, Dada, Abstract Expressionism, and social and until the development of original artistic language.

repeat, no matter how different aesthetic and philosophical preferences, the level of talent and lifestyles of these artists share one thing: they were thrown out of the official artistic life of the USSR rather than "admitted" there. Naturally, they were looking for ways to display their works, were ready for discussion, but not at the level of political investigation. Their names are now well known, and many have become classics of the modern Russian art. To name just a few: Oscar Rabin , Vladimir Weisberg , Yakovlev , Dmitry Krasnopevtsev , Edward Steinberg , , Oleg Tselkov , Michael Schwartzman , Dmitry Plavinsky , Vladimir Nemukhin , etc.

In the early 1960s, under the influence of the changing social atmosphere made possible some semi show their works in apartments, in research institutions, but always in places not covered by the control of the Academy of Arts and the Artists' Union. Part of the work by coming to Moscow the Polish and Czech art historians began to come to the exhibitions in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and later in Germany and Italy. Suddenly Moscow City Committee of the Komsomol organized "Club art schools", or in order to give students the opportunity to demonstrate their creativity, or to control and manage them.

In any case, the first exhibition of this club in the lobby of "Youth" in the spring of 1962 caused a great interest and response. I exhibited there triptych № 1 "Classic" 1961 (now in the Ludwig Museum in Budapest). From official policy was to some confusion. In the context of de-Stalinization they did not know exactly what to prohibit, and what does not and how to react at all. At the same time, at the invitation of the Chemistry Department of Moscow State University and I Ernst Unknown to do an exhibition in a recreation area in the building of the Faculty of the Moscow State University on Lenin Hills . There were other similar exhibitions by independent artists.

to the same part of the unattached Soviet artistic life can be attributed, and a quasi-official studio work Elia Belutin , the former teacher of the Moscow Polygraphic Institute, of which I was a student in the first year (57 /'58). Belyutin was expelled from the institute professors, former "formalists" 1920s-30s, led by Andrei Andrei Goncharov , was frightened of his growing influence. Themselves former once persecuted, they put on in the presence of students Belyutin shameful and cynical mock trial in the best traditions of the time and forced him to resign because of professional incompetence. Then Belyutin organized a studio, as he himself said, "training", "I have worked with artists, printers, painters, applied scientists and wanted these classes helped them in their work. I was glad when I saw that there were new fabrics with patterns of my students, appeared on the streets of Moscow beautiful posters made by them, or new models of clothes. I was pleased to see in the book stores with their illustrations. " In fact, he, of course, the evil one, it was officially acceptable version of the studio and it was said that in order to protect themselves. His activity as a teacher was much wider. He was an outstanding teacher and tried to realize their potential by teaching the alphabet the Studio of Contemporary Art, which has not been done and could not do in any official art schools of the country. The studio was very popular, it was visited at different times of the Studio a few hundred, but, unfortunately, most of them only assimilate the techniques of modern art, and stamps that can be used in practice, not understanding the method essentially Belutin what he told me with bitterness.

However the atmosphere and aura of her studio teacher exercises that he gave, were a window into modern art, in contrast to the squalid atmosphere and obscurantist official Soviet artistic life, tastes of the Academy and MOSH. The tragedy of the situation Belutin Elia, constantly forced to mimic, to be able to continue their work and not be destroyed, can be understood by reading that nonsense, which he was forced to speak in the hope of saving the studio after the show in the Arena "... I firmly believe that of Soviet artists, there can be abstract ... "and so on in the same vein.

In an atmosphere of uncertainty in maintaining their dominant positions academics sought to discredit the forces actually threaten their position. And the case was presented. The case, which they regarded as almost the last bastion, where they could give battle to its competitors. This bastion they decided to make cooking in Manezh commemorative exhibition on the 30th anniversary of the Moscow Union. In this exhibition were to be presented, among others, of "formalism" of the 1930s and the work of a new and dangerous for them to young people from the "left" of the Moscow Union. Expected visit at leadership. It's not entirely clear - whether it was a scheduled visit or academics could somehow organize it. Anyway, they decided to make the most of this visit and to set on their competitors far from the problems of art and have a primitive idea of ​​it the party and the government, using techniques familiar to the Soviet party demagoguery.

of a sudden fate they play along, tossing a gift. It is a semi-official studio Belutin exhibition, which was held in the second half of November 1962 at the House of teacher (can not remember the name of the institution) on Big Communist Street. To give greater weight to the show and the character of artistic events Belyutin invited to participate in it four artists who were his studio participants. He asked me to introduce him to the Ernst Neizvestny, which in his studio in Sretenka and a meeting was held and an agreement to participate in this exhibition. First, he invited me and the Unknown, and then on our recommendation - Hulot Sooster and Yuri Sobolev .

This square hall of the Grand Communist Taganka size approximately 12 meters by 12 meters and a height of six meters was tapestry weighting works in the Studio many rows from floor to ceiling. The work of three distinguished guests: Unknown sculpture stood around the room, pictures Sooster, each of which has a small size (50 x 70 cm) in total occupied a prominent place and very different from the work of the Studio. My pentaptih "Nuclear Station" length of six meters occupied most of the walls and also does not look like a studio. Of the fourth guest, Yuri Sobolev, lost, as he put a few small drawings on paper, which were not visible on the background of painting. The exhibition was held for three days and became a sensation. Her visit to the cream of the Soviet intelligentsia - composers, writers, filmmakers and scientists. I remember a conversation with Mikhail Romm, who was interested in my "Nuclear Power Plants" (I think, because of a thematic link with his film "Nine Days of One Year") and was asked to come to the studio, but was not called.

Foreign journalists made a film that is already on the next day showed in America. Local supervisors do not know how to react, because there was no direct order, and the police, just in case, by inertia, "pressed" on journalists - pierced tires in their cars, made a hole in the rights of any alleged violation. The excitement around the exhibition "amateur creativity", and even with a huge attention of foreign journalists, was a complete surprise to the authorities, and, while they chukha and understood it well over. On the third day we grew weak work on houses. In the last days of November the four of us - do not know Sooster, Soboleva and me - was invited to do an exhibition in the lobby of "Youth". P.