.jpg)
Host: We are now joined live by gallerist Marat Guelman. Marat, good morning.
Marat Guelman: Good morning. Yes, a wonderful, good morning.
Host: Thank you for finding the time, essentially straight from the venue, to join us on air. We wanted to ask you about the situation surrounding Alexander Sokurov. We were discussing it yesterday as well. Sokurov, who was supposed to travel and speak in Venice, was invited independently of the official Russian delegation—specifically, to participate in a panel discussion on dissent. Many people spoke out against his involvement, including yourself, Katya Margolis, and several others. We will read excerpts from that letter later. As a result, Alexander Sokurov did not travel there; he is not participating. I wanted to ask: are you satisfied with this outcome?
Guelman: First of all, I do not agree with your phrasing "as a result". Picture this: the leadership of the Biennale, the European Union, the Italian Ministry of Culture, and the Biennale’s sponsors were all demanding to exclude official Russia from participating, yet the organizers refused to budge. And then this letter appears, and it is suddenly utilized as an excuse to bar Sokurov from entry. So there is no real "result" here.
Furthermore, the letter itself was never anti-Sokurov. I love, respect, and value him deeply. The letter was specifically directed against his participation in that particular debate, because he is an individual who has to return to Moscow immediately afterward. Imagine challenging someone to a fight but telling them: "Your hands will be tied." That is a structural equivalent, because in a sharp, transparent debate, Sokurov would either have spoken the raw truth in the heat of the moment—and then he simply wouldn't be welcomed back in Moscow—or he would have had to withhold things, which means no real debate would have materialized.
Host: Meaning, you orchestrated this strictly for Sokurov’s own safety?
Guelman: No, listen to me. If you had read the entire letter, you would have seen a massive list of people appended to it. Our point is that today, those who dissent from the Kremlin are a distinct community. Cleanly more than half of them find themselves outside of Russia; a segment is in prison, and the segment currently remaining inside Russia operates as the so-called "new silents". For a normal, unconstrained debate to unfold, you require individuals who reside completely outside of the Kremlin's jurisdiction. Because any individual currently living in Moscow or planning to return there is heavily restricted in their capacity to engage in a free debate.
And I want to state that the decision to decline the trip was absolutely rational on Sokurov’s own part, because he comprehended that he would either completely jeopardize himself or no real debate would materialize. That's all. He realized they wanted to utilize him. The reality is that they already utilized him once before, six years ago. In order to bar contemporary Russian artists from Venice, Mikhail Piotrovsky was appointed commissioner of the Biennale pavilion, and instead of fine artists, he put forward Sokurov. And Sokurov devised something with students from an art school—they sculpted a project that might be conceptually interesting for a cinematic context, but completely uninteresting for an fine art context. Yet again, there is strictly one grievance against him: he is a wonderful person himself, and when he operates as an auteur, he is brilliant, but in that specific instance, his friendship with Piotrovsky led to this, and he played an unseemly role. This time around, it seems to me he realized in time that he shouldn't be playing someone else's game.
Host: As stated in the letter—I promised to quote it. I have read it, obviously, but out loud it is quite lengthy, especially the appendix listing the surnames of political prisoners. With your permission, I won't quote the appendix, but here is a specific snippet:
"What is being offered today looks like a staged performance of dissent, permitted by roster, pre-selected and safe, debated behind closed doors in the format of a cocktail reception for invited VIPs, while the voices of those for whom dissent is a matter of life and freedom are simply ignored."
The conclusion I draw from this is that you are essentially saying: "We are here, we are out in the open, we are ready for a debate," yet we weren't invited; instead, they invited some "tame" Sokurov who has been house-trained.
Guelman: Look at it this way yet again. Regarding the representation of dissent—the vast majority residing outside of Russia are free to speak their minds. Instead of inviting them, the organizers invited an individual who is bound to return to Russia, meaning he will be forced to hold back.
The reality is that all of this is unfolding against the backdrop of a massive scandal developing here regarding corruption within the Venice municipality. They engineered this entire discussion program exclusively after the scandal erupted surrounding the Russian Federation's official participation. They attempted to soften the impact in this manner. It turned out...
Host: We cannot hear what is happening on your end, just so you know.
Guelman: One second, one second. The participation of the Russian pavilion at the Venice Biennale was, by and large, initiated by the Venice Mayor's office. Two years ago already, they were actively inviting and lobbying them: "Come along and participate, bring your budgets with you." Back then, they operated through Teresa Mavrica, the former director of the V-A-C GES-2 space. But Teresa, as a rational person, stated that she had no desire to jeopardize fine artists or her own corporate leadership. Vladimir Shvydkoy proved far more pliable and completely set up the Kremlin, because for the past six months, the Venice Biennale has operated as a primary platform for criticizing the Kremlin.
But one way or another, the reality that the Biennale leadership is acting as an agent and a proxy for the Kremlin is being heavily debated here. And they pro-actively devised a discussion program with dissenters to smooth over this situation. And it is pro-actively and absolutely correctly formulated in the letter that this represents an attempt to construct a mere stage decoration rather than a genuine debate. Let me repeat with profound respect toward Sokurov himself and his stance—including his desire to execute things while remaining inside Russia. Alternative individuals attempting to accomplish things while remaining inside Russia also command deep respect. But from that position, it is impossible to debate honestly—meaning it is impossible to win a match in the ring with your hands tied.
.jpg)
Host: Marat, forgive me, I will ask you point-blank. The letter states—with a highly fascinating caveat—that this is not about a specific personality, not about Sokurov, but about a core principle. Can dissent be represented by those—meaning Sokurov—who circulate without risk between the authorities and international acclaim, while others face prison, exile, or death for the exact same actions? Whom else is that directed at?
Guelman: Look, I want to state that this is a highly unfortunate and even a deeply, deeply toxic formulation. Yet I signed it. Look, the reality is that—as Plyushchev correctly noted—the letter is massive, and it houses a list of prisoners, meaning substantively it is correct. I missed it; I didn't edit it before signing simply because I agreed with the baseline core.
I agree that those who drafted it committed a massive stupidity, or to put it mildly, a blunder. But substantively, if you are conversing with me, I naturally consider that specific formulation to be highly flawed, but it doesn't alter the core substance. The core substance is that today, Sokurov is unsuited to act as a representative speaking on dissent precisely because he resides within Putin’s jurisdiction. For that—and this is outlined there—for a honest conversation to unfold, you require individuals who are free from that constraint.
Host: It creates a sensation as though he is complicit in the arrests. He is a man who literally attended Sasha Skochilenko’s court trials, and she signed the letter herself.
Guelman: Look, Sokurov is completely beyond suspicion. He is an absolutely sincere, honest person, especially in his creative work. But they already utilized his honesty once before in this exact manner, understand? Six years ago, when a situation arose where they resolved to bar fine artists because they couldn't find a single contemporary artist—and they failed to find one this year either—who would align with the regime and represent Russia. And back then, Piotrovsky, leveraging his personal relations, utilized him. Sokurov himself is honest, there are no grievances against him, but he wound up being utilized as a tool to substitute a genuine contemporary art situation. Therefore, I repeat, it seems to me that in this instance, he comprehended this himself.
You should reach out and ask him directly. I am absolutely confident that the decision was made by him independently. Furthermore, I spoke with the administration yesterday, and they told us that the debate was canceled because he declined to participate. I am certain it was his personal decision. I am ready to lose a wager if you manage to reach him and he tells you that this was the result of pressure or something to that effect.
Host: He wrote strictly a few words himself: "It is all so bitter, it is all so heavy," Sokurov wrote in response, observing, among alternative things, the performance and protests by Pussy Riot.
Guelman: No, no, he brushed it off publicly, claiming that the logistics were complex with the flights, and therefore it was his own decision. I read that explicitly. As for his underlying motives, probably in this situation yet again, he cannot be fully candid. And that is a challenge, you know.
When you pointed out that it’s a very bad formulation yet I signed it, honestly, I crossly assumed for a second that it was you who hadn't read the letter, rather than me. But I...
Host: You assumed correctly.
Guelman: You assumed correctly. I skimmed it pro-actively.
Host: That happens.
Guelman: I signed it, and subsequently the backlash hit me. And it turned out that while alternative individuals drafted it, I signed it because I agreed with the substance, yet the backlash hit primarily me.
Host: I’m interested in how Sasha Skochilenko signed it, since Sokurov attended her trials, but unfortunately, she is out of reach. I simply wanted to state a phrase rather than ask a question. I am abroad too. I read what the viewers are writing right now. Incidentally, I am running a poll: "Is the letter against Sokurov's participation in the Biennale a correct act, an incorrect act, or does it immaterially matter?" Please cast your votes. It would be interesting to have Marat comment on how our viewers vote.
From my perspective, how this is perceived from inside Russia by the audience that opposes Putin is that you are denying agency to people remaining inside Russia—including agency in debating Putin or protesting against Putin, and so forth—as if we abroad have appointed ourselves... Garry Kasparov frequently claims that no one is left inside Russia who opposes Putin, and so forth. It feels as if we have appointed ourselves the primary custodians of the anti-Putin agenda, while everyone remaining inside Russia is dismissed...
Guelman: Let me repeat my stance. I harbor immense respect for individuals who endeavor to accomplish things while remaining inside Russia. I comprehend and am glad for my friends who at the very least refrain from participating in evil, right? These "new silents." But they cannot participate in an open debate; their hands are tied. This isn't about us appointing ourselves; we have been placed in this situation today. That is exactly why we left. I left because I wanted to speak my mind, whereas inside it was dangerous. If I were inside right now, I would be silent too. That is obvious. This doesn't mean we are somehow superior or our stance is better. It’s simply that our hands are free, while their hands are tied. That's all.
Host: I am simply pointing out how it is decoded. Right now, I don't know, perhaps I am not translating this message entirely accurately, but I receive it in this exact form. "The letter against Sokurov's participation at the Biennale: is it a correct act?" 30% of our voters think so. 35% call it an incorrect act, and 35% say it immaterially matters. It is roughly split equally.
Guelman: The framing of your poll is inaccurate. It wasn't against Sokurov's participation at the Biennale; it was against Sokurov's participation in a debate concerning dissent.
.jpg)
Host: Listen, I cannot write such a lengthy question. Naturally, I truncate it for the sake of the interface.
Guelman: Sokurov participated in the Biennale previously, it was highly unsuccessful, and he was utilized back then. Piotrovsky proved to be a swindler—meaning not merely a proponent of the full-scale invasion, but he simply utilized the decency of an individual with whom he had apparently maintained good relations for a long time, in the interests of the Kremlin. And unfortunately, let me add, we are all occasionally utilized. You endeavor, and I endeavor, to avoid being a useful idiot, but it doesn't always succeed. I might fail to identify it immediately myself, and subsequently post-factum I receive the backlash. I deeply regret that specific formulation. And let me repeat that the stance of Sokurov, Muratov, and all individuals who possess the courage to express their views while remaining in Moscow commands nothing short of my admiration.
Host: Thank you very much. We thank gallerist Marat Guelman, who joined us today straight from Venice.
Co-host: Let's continue. You know, I would still like to add a comment regarding Sokurov, who is claimed to be silent. Let’s recall the session of the Presidential Council last December, where he stated two vital things directly to Putin, while Putin's lackeys played along. The first thing: he called it an absolute disgrace that the children of war are competing for university slots, while the children of full-scale invasion veterans are effectively displacing talented youth from securing free education. And the second thing he stated was outright "to the Tsar's face"—that it is a humiliation that individuals are designated as "foreign agents," that it is a disgrace, and so forth. Broadly speaking, that represents immense courage by our modern standards. He is not silent. Sokurov is not silent.
Host: One can bring up the exact same arguments for the fifth time regarding hands being tied and all the rest, but everyone possesses their own stance and their own truth.
