.jpg)
Host: When Alla Pugacheva gave her interview that caused such a massive stir, many people told her: "Your audience won't support this. Your audience is identical to Putin's audience." But an artist is responsible for their own words, and down the line, it turns out that some supported her, while others did not. We are accountable for our own actions.
If we talk about significance—let's look at the facts: a substantial portion of contemporary culture has left Russia. I mean contemporary culture. Does the segment that remained support this? For instance, if you open the VKontakte music charts, you will see Monetochka occupying the top slot. Monetochka left the country. Whether they support her departure, I don't know. But I know that if we look at the list of writers: Vladimir Sorokin lives here in Berlin, 150 meters away from me; Lyudmila Ulitskaya is 1,000 meters away; Victor Yerofeyev is here, and so on. Mikhail Shishkin is in Switzerland, Boris Akunin is in England, Dmitry Glukhovsky is currently moving between locations. This accounts for cleanly more than half of the creative core—the most significant segment of Russian literature.
If we look at musicians, the situation is identical. Every single one of them did not follow their audience; conversely, they pulled the audience toward themselves. They state: "This is my anti-war stance, now choose where you stand." Naturally, the Kremlin endeavors to discredit them. And the regime is so nervous precisely because it is far simpler to discredit a politician than a person of art, because an audience follows an artist for decades. You cannot simply dismiss them and claim: "Oh, Pugacheva was paid off," or "Boris Grebenshchikov is a traitor," and so forth.
The profession of an artist, in the broadest sense, is a public profession. You manifest your stance constantly. A physician or a taxi driver possesses the right to withhold their political stance; you utilize their services without inquiring what they think about the war. An society grants an artist attention precisely because they are an individual, because they follow their convictions and their stance. Therefore, it may turn out that while they don't support it today, they will support it tomorrow. Be that as it may, not a single artist—including those remaining inside Russia—wished to speak on behalf of the Russian Federation as a state. Are there artists remaining inside Russia who harbor an anti-Kremlin agenda and could act as representatives?
Marat Guelman: Of course, absolutely. We have actually introduced a specific term for them: "the new quiets." These are artists who simply sabotage participation, refusing to engage in anything connected to the state. They work exclusively with private galleries, private art fairs, and private museums. Naturally, a threat looms over them as well right now. That is why they are silent. Their minimal form of resistance is silence.
Host: Concluding the topic. The Biennale. Under what flag will the delegations of anti-war Russians be represented at all these events?
Guelman: Brilliant. You know, one of the actions—perhaps it didn't echo as loudly as the Pussy Riot action—was an action by Anton Litvin. Anton Litvin is a Russian artist residing in Prague who organizes the “Kulturus” festival—the culture of Russians. Following the Pussy Riot action, the official representatives inside the Russian pavilion essentially hid inside the building, terrified of stepping outside because individuals wanting to confront them over their participation stood outside. Consequently, the flagpole where the flag is hoisted was left unattended. Anton removed the official flag and hoisted the white-blue-white flag. It was a beautiful, elegant symbol demonstrating that an alternative, anti-war Russia exists. I don't know what official decisions will follow down the line, but today it utilizes the white-blue-white flag as a banner from which the red stripe—the stripe of blood—has been washed away from the Russian flag.
Host: What is your current relationship to the tricolor?
Guelman: I relate to it in such a manner that I endeavor to avoid being near it—meaning I refuse to stand beneath it. I comprehend the individuals who argue that we must not surrender either the Russian language or the Russian flag to Putin. Okay. On the whole, our endless debates regarding what is correct are pointless. What matters is strictly whether a person is against the war or for it. If they are against the war but believe the tricolor is necessary, okay—they are still my ally. But as far as I am personally concerned, without attempting to convince anyone, I utilize the white-blue-white flag.
Host: On Saturday, the Champions League football final took place, featuring Russian goalkeeper Matvey Safonov playing for Paris Saint-Germain. His wife fashioned a Russian tricolor out of a French flag and stepped onto the pitch with it to celebrate the victory. What is your relationship to this? How do you view it?
Guelman: I view it as a statement made by a free person in a free country. It reminds me of the joke where two individuals are debating where there is more freedom, America or Russia. The American says: "I can step in front of the White House and criticize the sitting President of the United States." The Russian responds: "I can also step onto Red Square and criticize the sitting President of the United States." I view it exactly like that: the person fears nothing, expresses themselves, and holds certain convictions. They appear rather un-reflected to me, but those are her convictions.
.jpg)
Host: We don't know what context she embedded into stepping out with the Russian flag.
Guelman: What matters is that she is not afraid. That is the most essential aspect: she comprehends that in Paris or in France, she won't be imprisoned over this gesture. That is what matters.
Host: Do you think anti-war society will condemn this?
Guelman: I don't know. I don't think there will be a single, uniform party-line opinion. No, someone will undoubtedly write a lampoon; we can even guess who, and it will contain many valid, piercing words. But as for us, during this time we have learned not to debate such matters. There are actual, fundamental challenges that must be resolved, and across the rest of the spectrum, every individual possesses the right to their personal stance.
Host: Remaining with sports: many international federations are currently restoring the Russian flag and the Russian anthem. At the European Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships, gymnasts competed under the flag and anthem. What is your relationship to this?
Guelman: My relationship to this is melancholy. I believe Trump has essentially achieved his objective: he fractured the wall separating Putin from the world. And into this breach, various kinds of corrupt individuals and what we in Germany call “Putin-Verstehers” (Putin-understanders) have crawled. "Let’s understand Putin." Unfortunately, yes, I regret it, but over these past two years with Trump in power, a corrosion of the international rejection of the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine has transpired. I cannot say that I condemn it—my opinion doesn't matter to them anyway. I simply regret that it is unfolding.
Host: Is it necessary to combat this, to take action?
Guelman: I would put it like this: if they brought me a letter to sign yet again, I would read it carefully, purge any personal attacks, and sign it.
