the Stalin Constitution, written under Brezhnev or Yeltsin… Everything in me is opposed to utilitarian approach. But, apparently, it is the only correct evaluation criterion.
the English artist Jenny Saville says: “the Power of painting is that it is useless”. Probably refers to: a patterned fabric is not capable of anything to influence. Although it is not so, we know that the image of the virgin and child made to worship (the prayer itself transforms human beings and the surrounding reality), and the opening of a second front in world war II was preceded by (and promoted?) brought to the negotiations between Stalin and the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition exhibition of paintings by Soviet artists, depicting the militaristic horror.
It’s not about global or narrow, practical approach to the art, that no art can do (and how many inhabitants of the planet safely cost), and the utilitarianism as the extraction of pleasure from the contemplation of beautiful composition, colors, seemingly not directly associated with our life image, of meaning, wonderfully capturing our related thereto.
Vladimir Nabokov were ardent opponent of burdening literature any educational and ideological functions, as an example of their own creativity have proved the only goal of the literature (brush and chisel) to win, to recruit, to attract, to impress the supporter of aesthetic subterfuge, intellectual delicacy. However, is not politicized propaganda permeated his “Gift”, debunks N. G.Chernyshevsky? That is, again, calculating utilitarianism (not the commercialism!) driven by thoughts and implicitly imposes its will and authors, and vosprinimala.
To the formula of Jenny Saville, which opened up those notes there: a painting is as useless as dreams. What material they use? But no sleep (and the phantasmagoric visions of reality, for example, Salvador Dali) life is incomplete. And doomed to disease and quick stepanie. Sleep–painting–literature — the mysterious fuel, without which the existence withers.
Utilitarian whether democracy?
Fair question: if democracy is utilitarian in a broad current, not ancient Greek sense of the term; there is justified, for example (small example, astragaloside from emotions), the demolition of the Cinema center on Krasnaya Presnya, the façade of which is coated with a diamond-shaped, partly clown pattern already brought joy? The destruction of this is not that of architecture, not that of the monument of culture (although in a sense it was) was evidence of the powerlessness and helplessness of those who wanted to defend, to protect and preserve roadss heart vibes and bricks. Triumph, vos-dominated motif, again utilitarian: the site (and the site where twist dreams films-Mirage) center, deninitely, pribyline, and if so — it is necessary to intensify the dividends. Not at the expense of the popcorn, art films or blockbusters to do it! Before such a weighty argument recedes useless admiration of the diamonds.
a Fair premise to destruction?
deep down, we know not. And even not at all… But we’re prepared for such an eventuality, and prepared the literary, theatrical, almost from the cradle: the cherry orchard is subject to logging (elk Island and trampling; it was unfortunate in a bargain, and the Khimki forest), and the cottages will be built, tracks laid, whales and killer whales killed or locked in a water prison for sale in the aquariums. A special refinement, if penises floating fountains giants will adorn the salons of a luxury yacht (specifically, a millionaire Onassis, made his millions, scattered later descendants of the — read Theodore Dreiser, including the extermination of adult whales and whales; another piquancy — annihilating these whaling expeditions led Onassis hired a former Nazi starter human blood). If (temporarily) prohibited to kill people, fit Pets.
Monetizing any chance of
the Unraveling of totalitarianism and utilitarianism — in contrast and comparison of admiring the facades and not admiring nothing, reading and not reading, able to learn from reading and not able to learn. Some of them understand, they sense the uniqueness of every tree, every sunrise and sunset, each beloved soul memories — historic buildings, in addition to having commercial or, let’s say, the core values are spiritual; others thoughtless and rabid monetize any chance and the moment weighed in the balance of benefits any reason. The choice is not in favor of the eternal, and in favor of short-term. Here are naked on the drafts of the ages.
the allure of the devil
Kids (and adults who know how to hide their secret inclination) like negative characters: they are brighter, more effective, more colorful Gorny, with positive and are themselves embodied the triumph repressed dreams of the forbidden fruit that I want to tear and bite.
About the difficult relationship between the mustachioed leader and author of the novel “Master and Margarita” was published megatons research. I took an unexpected angle on this theme: if people, the world population is provided to choose a way of life — Stalin and Bulgakov — whose example they would prefer, what kind of biography are more inclined to itself, and itself has tried? I suspect the 99% CLif unquestioned authorities, prodding millions of slaves, loud privatnosti. Baltazarovych peers. And spit on the millions of victims. And without them? Posthumous ntabona altogether disparate: the deplorable state of petelicki, petitioner, valanciaus, leader pleading for leniency, and the position of the omnipotent tyrant. Uncontrolled permissiveness bigger than agonizing search for the aesthetic and social perfection.
Lord of the flies
the Little man and small man — speech and semantic synonyms or identical concepts? Akaky — small or small? Chichikov is small? Or is it a small demon? Box — small? Or double bottom? Khlestakov — small? Or will be bigger than mayor?
Small and little are not interesting? With their crazy notes and shinelike? Even as capture those stories!
Large — one who rules, rules the world? Stalin, Hitler? That is certainly a villain? Intermediate, small-large, average caliber no? Could the pathetic Akaky become Stalin? Hitler? And Dissenters — Napoleon?
Napoleon why did Leo Tolstoy? Graph-writer to have fallen short of the mental scale of the conqueror of Europe? Why Platon Karataev took the Creator of the novel-epopee of more?
Stalin and his henchmen did not give rest to small (in comparison with the ambitions of the Kremlin crowned tillage), it is unclear what dedicated geniuses. Manic it was necessary to crush and grind into powder Bulgakov, Platonov, Akhmatova, Zoshchenko, it was necessary to destroy Tsvetaeva and Mandelstam… And how many more! Lord of the flies has caught the significance of the true masterminds and creators of the non-political mirages and struggled with them available their understanding methods.
Even classic trimmer mode Valentin Kataev, in every way glorifying revolutionary romanticism and Stalin’s dizzying achievements, nurtured in the soul of the sedition broke out after (at the end of his long life) denouncing the Bolshevik terror novel “Already written Werther”. Snatch a regime which catered to all the possible benefits under the curtain of fate has opened the heart. Backhand said about leaders: “God damn you all!”. Is not a sentence violates any rough power — on of the century?
as is demonstrated so long and still reject mimicry? That an old age without fear? That young need to devote to pleasure, regardless of conscience? Or that it is necessary to observe the Council Bulgakov’s the Master — not to ask villains? The Master commanded that the sacredness, the Mikhail Bulgakov more like (forced) asked, pleased and probably unimaginable suffering because of this. Therefore, and given the ideal, not ��laranaga compromises the character of his pain and frustrated life’s hardness (a literary will he still get it)!
I’m bored, the devil…
“the Artist may not be in opposition to power.” A widespread approval. But Dostoevsky and Gogol were not opposition. Ivan Goncharov and even served as a censor, and Saltykov-Shchedrin — the mayor. In opposition to the reality — their texts, their rejection of what is happening around (and part of what they are, and to my horror or to their great joy, are). The dark and light sides exist in everyone, it is with alarming accuracy captured in the “Black man” Yesenin. From the same cohort gloomy and eerie gallery of the landowners at the head of Chichikov, the inhabitants of the city Glupov, Svidrigailov and demons Verkhovensky — but do not become Verkhovensky neither Gogol or Shchedrin, or Dostoevsky. So, talking about an infallible internal vector torn by contradictions and conflicts of personality. She rebels against their own imperfections.