.jpg)
Sergei: Before the voting commences, I will allow myself a brief remark. You may include this in my five minutes. I believe the framing of the question itself is not entirely correct because it appears—either at Marat's suggestion or due to an oversight by the editor—as though my opponent holds the righteous position, as if it were a justified protest, while I have been dealt the unenviable role of a sore loser or even a propagandist from Russian television—which, of course, I am not—who talks day and night about the cancellation of Russian culture.
Russian culture itself is so massive that canceling it is impossible. It will outlive all of us: me, you, Marat, and all of our viewers combined, and certainly a handful of "cancelers" led by Katya Margolis and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova. Evidence of this is the recent Cannes Film Festival and the success of director Andrey Zvyagintsev. And by the way, I will have a question later: why wasn't that festival picketed? In my view, that is a far more massive event than the Biennale. Or did the budgets run out in Venice?
Regarding the theme of my speech, why didn't I like it? We all know that the Biennale was marked by protests around two pavilions: the Russian and the Israeli. I was at the Israeli pavilion and saw how those protests gather rallies of thousands. Civil society genuinely participated in them, including ordinary Venetians with Palestinian flags, with some of whom we managed to speak.
But at the Russian pavilion, we saw a mere handful of picketers. It was a few delegates from PACE, the registered trademark Pussy Riot, and Katya Margolis—the sole resident of Venice. So we see, on one side, genuine civil society and civic resistance, and on the other, self-appointed individuals representing who knows whom. What civil society do they represent? If these people represent Ukrainians, how did this action help the situation on the front line? Did it shift or improve the position of the AFU on the front line by even a millimeter? Of course not.
Or perhaps it helped the Russian people? But we understand that Russians are rather preoccupied with questions of internet freedom, or even cattle slaughter concerns them more than this action. Yes, it didn't help the Russian people in any way. One of the signatories of the letter, Daniil Tkachenko, already "helped" the Russian people when he burned down a Russian village for the sake of a beautiful shot. That was one of his artistic actions. And my subsequent question to my opponent will be: is this genuinely an artistic action, and what is its value?
Or, let's say, did this action help Russian anti-war emigrants like myself? No, this action did not help. I would prefer that the PACE delegate, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, occupy herself with far more urgent matters. For instance, when lawyer Bendish had his residence permit revoked in Lithuania—did she handle such issues, or offer aid to the many, many anti-war-minded Russians who encountered problems in Europe?
I believe this was a PR stunt. Moreover, a rather untalented and profoundly derivative PR stunt. I was informed that my opponent, when asked in an interview why Pussy Riot has been making the exact same remakes for 15 years, responded to the effect that Putin has also been in power for a long time. Well, I think my esteemed opponent had the pleasure of reading Walter Benjamin’s great book, “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility,” the main thesis of which is that mass replication destroys art; it loses its authenticity, it forfeits its aura. Having lost its sacredness, you see, art becomes a tool of the mass media. What did we witness? We witnessed a PR stunt where a few PACE delegates and, I repeat, the registered trademark Pussy Riot, wanted to land on the front pages of European newspapers. Which they succeeded in doing.
Marat Guelman: Yes, thank you. Well, I will start from the beginning. When the full-scale invasion commenced, the Russian Federation—the state, not the artists, but the state—began to be carved out from everywhere. Essentially, cooperation with them was terminated, and their delegation was removed from PACE. This was the universal sentiment, the universal reaction to the aggression. It did not target artists. Concurrently, thousands of artists participated in exhibitions in Europe, received awards, performed at theater festivals, and launched new chapters of their careers. I would even say that, in a sense, Russian culture received a European inoculation during these specific four years.
This means a rigid stance toward the state coupled with a clear position that the artist is accountable strictly for themselves. Take the chronicle of film festivals, for instance: a moment arose when the Ukrainian delegation requested the removal of Kirill Serebrennikov’s film, to which the organizers responded that they do not cooperate with and harbor no connection to the state, while the artist speaks in his personal capacity and bears no accountability for state actions. This stance, unquestionably, was unsavory to the authorities. The authorities attempted to breach this wall in some manner. They primarily utilized talented individuals. It turned out that our Italian colleagues emerged as the weak link in this European stance.
And fundamentally, before the protests commenced, there was a letter from the European Commission and even an appeal from the Ministry of Culture to the Biennale stating that the participation of the Russian Federation—specifically the state—is impermissible at the Biennale. The alternative side explained that they oppose censorship and want everyone to be present. To that, we—meaning the Russian platform in the Parliamentary Assembly—wrote that accepting the Russian Federation is not an act against censorship. Quite the contrary, it welcomes the primary censor. The one who compiles blacklists, squeezes out artists, imprisons them, and bans books is the one securing a platform from you. One cannot claim this went unnoticed. In the end, a compromise was reached: the Russian pavilion operated for three days prior to the official opening, and subsequently it was shut down.
And in this situation, many artists—and by the way, Nadya stated this publicly—say: "Well, we must speak out against it so we don't feel ashamed." Yes, perhaps, like much of what we do, it won't alter the course of the war. See, even Trump failed to alter the war, or the positions of the AFU or Putin. War is war. But many things we do, we do for ourselves. It is highly vital here that many individuals who refuse to cooperate with the Russian Federation as a state today cannot influence Putin, but they at least act for themselves, so that down the line their grandchildren won't ask: "What were you doing?" At the very least, I was protesting.
Protest actions—there were many of them. There were Ukrainians, of course, staging their protests, and there were plenty of Russians as well. The protest actions primarily pursued two objectives. The first major objective was to prevent Russia from normalizing the situation, because the strategy of the Kremlin or Shvydkoy was precisely this: "We want to slip back in by stealth, here and there, as if nothing had happened." That failed. This roaring reaction to the Pussy Riot action, which is labeled as self-PR, actually fulfilled its primary objective—preventing normalization. Every single instance must be documented; people must remain on guard. And the second objective is accountability to oneself.
Protest actions persist and will continue until September. And just as paintings can turn out successful or unsuccessful, actions can also turn out successful or unsuccessful. But within the specific action we discussed today, a highly vital element exists that I want to highlight. For the first time, the Russian Pussy Riot and the Ukrainian Femen executed a joint project—meaning Russians and Ukrainians standing together against the Kremlin. This is a highly critical symbolic sign.
Well, I don't know, structurally I harbor no essential questions for Sergei. Therefore, across the general agenda: formulate your stance toward the full-scale invasion with absolute clarity—your stance toward this action by the Kremlin or the Russian Federation.
Sergei: I believe my criminal case speaks exhaustively regarding my stance toward the invasion. On the night of March 3–4, 2022, I was detained by FSB officers for conducting an anti-war action, as a result of which I was sentenced to eight months of restriction of freedom and spent them in the town of Kasimov, Ryazan Oblast, wearing a tracking anklet. I was fortunate because it was the very onset of the war—it was March 3–4—and at that time, they hadn't managed to ratify an array of repressive laws, such as the one concerning the "discreditation of the Russian army," under which I would have been sent away for seven or eight years. Therefore, I was tried under the article for vandalism.
.jpg)
Marat Guelman: So your stance hasn't shifted?
Sergei: No, my position has completely remained unchanged.
Marat Guelman: I am satisfied with the response and glad to hear it, I would put it that way.
Sergei: Marat, I partially formulated it during my speech. My question is this: at the Cannes Film Festival, where we witnessed the entire Moscow beau monde from Ksenia Sobchak to, Heaven forgive us, Nadezhda Strelets, everyone was walking the red carpet—why wasn't a single Pussy Riot action conducted there? Or were all the budgets spent on the trip to Venice?
Marat Guelman: Well, that addition is completely superfluous. It reflects poorly on you first and foremost. There were no budgets involved, I know this for a fact. But the question lies elsewhere. Pussy Riot, and all of us, we are highly happy for Zvyagintsev. And just like with the Cannes festival, we believe that protests must target exclusively the participation of the Russian Federation as a state, rather than targeting an artist who is, effectively, speaking out against the Kremlin today. Exactly like myself. I returned the day before yesterday, opened an exhibition in Paris; two weeks ago, I opened an exhibition in New York; three weeks ago, we opened a gallery in Brussels. Meaning, we all actively participate in European cultural life, receive our accolades and awards, our works are purchased, and so forth. The entire protest is directed not against people, not against Russian culture, but against the state entity of the Russian Federation, which seeks to creep into Europe using culture as a vehicle. That is my response.
Sergei: And targeting Sokurov along the way.
Marat Guelman: Let's treat that as a separate question. That is a distinct matter. Well, fine, we might touch upon it later.
Sergei: My question again. Tell me, what is the source of your skepticism regarding Pussy Riot’s participation? You claim that it’s about budgets or that aesthetically it is imprecise? Do you believe that during a war, it is more critical to reflect upon an artistic gesture or a human act?
Sergei: I believe that one shouldn't mimic civil society. They are mimicking a certain civil society. I repeat, they represent no one: neither Russian civil society, nor the Russian emigrant anti-war community, and they certainly do not represent Ukrainians. If we conduct a poll tomorrow in Ukraine asking whether this action they conducted helped them in any way, I think 80% or even more will respond that they were unaware of its existence. I believe they are fighting for their own brand, just like Femen. It is an identical registered trademark. And you are perfectly aware of this. One of the co-founders, who committed suicide in Paris in 2013, I believe, wrote exactly that in her suicide note—that you have transformed into a commercial enterprise. Therefore, two commercial companies are holding a rally outside the Russian pavilion. Well, then present it as a dispute between corporate entities, rather than as some civil society supposedly fighting for everything good against everything bad.
Marat Guelman: Well, simply as a comment: Pussy Riot never claimed to represent anyone besides themselves. When they conducted actions in Moscow, they also... Meaning, these are artists who expressed thoughts in a sharp, radically piercing form that occasionally aligned, and occasionally did not align, with public opinion—as was the case in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. So I don't fully comprehend the grievance. I simply want to state that in this instance, they achieved an essential objective: the Kremlin's attempts to creep into the European cultural context by stealth failed. It turned out loud.
Sergei: Wait, how did they fail? The Biennale management responded to all grievances: "Listen guys, it is our business whom to invite and whom not to invite."
Marat Guelman: Thus, it failed by stealth. The entire world is outraged; all media outlets are outraged. I think they couldn't... They don't wield power.
Sergei: A PR stunt on blood, I would say—on the blood of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples, because...
Marat Guelman: Regarding "on blood," that is certainly... I simply want to state that...
Sergei: Well, look, the person who called for the war is named Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Zvyagintsev recently reminded him of that—that he is responsible for the war. Meanwhile, the artist Daniil Tkachenko, who burned down Russian villages in the North...
I have a question. Your collective letter that you signed—ultimately, what were you trying to achieve? That is my first question. Can I ask two questions in one? First: who is the actual author? Because I know that the Sota outlet conducted a three-day investigation into who physically penned that letter, yet no one confessed. And I posed this question to you when we stood adjacent to the Moldovan pavilion in Venice. And my second question is this: what were you trying to achieve with this collective letter? Did you want to terminate the operation of the Russian pavilion entirely, or let's assume, if the Biennale management had agreed? After all, the letter contains a phrase stating that the voices of those artists who were forced to leave the territory of Russia must be heard. Or, let's assume, if the Biennale management told you: "Alright, okay, we are removing the 'Taloka' ensemble, composer Retinsky, and composer Sysoev—launch Katya Margolis with her artistic works." Would you have agreed? Would your demands have been satisfied?
Marat Guelman: I think it is a absurd assumption that Guelman was lobbying for the participation of Katya Margolis or anyone else inside the Russian pavilion. No. That letter was the outcome of the Biennale management, in an attempt to save face, launching a "Discussion with Dissidents" program a week prior to the opening of the Biennale. And along the way, Sokurov was selected as the token dissident. One must bear in mind that Sokurov participated in the Biennale six years ago already. Meaning, he is a talented, decent individual, but nonetheless Piotrovsky, who manages our military-cultural SVO, selected him instead of fine artists. And he executed some project with the students of the academy. The project was very weak because he is not a fine artist; he doesn't comprehend this context exceptionally well, but nonetheless he permitted himself to be utilized. And in this instance, Sokurov—not we, but Sokurov—realized in time that they wanted to utilize him again. And under the pretext of failing to coordinate certain flights, he simply declined to participate.
Regarding our letter: within our letter—and here is a partial answer to the question of who compiled the list of imprisoned artists—it coincides with the list of those artists whose works we exhibited in Stockholm at the exhibition of works by imprisoned artists. That list was compiled by the curator of the exhibition, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova. I believe Nadya authored half of the letter.
So our concept was very simple: if we are talking about dissenters, if we want to speak openly and honestly, we must speak with those individuals who are ready to do so and who won't face repercussions for it. Because if you summon Sokurov to a debate and pose a question, answering which prevents him from returning to Russia, you jeopardize Sokurov. Therefore, we said: "Go ahead and invite those people who are ready to speak out at a debate." By no means did it concern the pavilion. On the whole, I think no one will want to exhibit in that pavilion for a long time.
And incidentally, this time, you know that I know probably three generations of all significant Russian artists remaining in Russia. Not a single one of them was represented this time in the Russian pavilion. Who orchestrated it, who selected them—some state corporations? This holds zero relation to culture. And I will state that if today someone told me: "Marat, you need to curate this pavilion," I would say: "Absolutely not."
Sergei: May I offer two remarks?
Marat Guelman: I am perfectly open.
Sergei: I would like to offer a clarification that Sokurov was ultimately speaking not on behalf of the Russian pavilion. He was invited by the management—specifically the management of the Venice Biennale.
Marat Guelman: No, I was speaking about six years ago. He represented Russia as an artist. They didn't want to let fine artists in; the contemporary artists are all disloyal. And instead of them, Piotrovsky resolved to propose Sokurov. That was six years ago. And Sokurov represented Russia directly inside the pavilion.
Sergei: Right. And the second point regarding the lists. You mentioned that Nadezhda Tolokonnikova compiled those lists, yet Katya Margolis harbors a completely alternative version. She claims it was Sasha Skochilenko’s mother.
Marat Guelman: Well, perhaps they collaborate and communicate. I simply discovered that...
Sergei: The question hangs in the air: who is the author of this letter?
Marat Guelman: I think it is a collective letter, to be honest. Like any letter, I believe it contains a flaw. The fact that I failed to edit out that profoundly vulgar passage—the characterization of Sokurov, for which I am ashamed—that is my accountability, because the moment I signed it, I assumed ownership of it all. Furthermore, I conducted my own minor investigation and see no need to share it, because as an individual who suffered from it, I expressed my stance to the people who penned it. But that doesn't justify me in itself, because yes, one must be... It just so happened that, first of all, it was a massive letter; secondly, we signed it in English. But that does not justify me. What I am ready to confess publicly right now is that I simply should have discarded that fragment. There was no time to edit; I should have just axed that section, because substantively the letter is correct: if you want to debate dissent—meaning protest—speak with those who suffered. The reality is that these individuals are outside of Putin's jurisdiction, and they can debate openly.
Sergei, what comes next? The war, we hope, should conclude this year. For your part, will you endeavor to return, or are you attempting to construct your life in Europe? Have you located a pursuit for yourself outside of this Russian media bubble?
Sergei: That holds no relevance to the theme of our debate, probably. Well, I will respond, of course. I think every man is for himself. It will turn out just like a hundred years ago, in the end. And we currently witness endless brawls within the ranks of the Russian opposition. As a result, every individual survives independently. And that is why I state that we shouldn't represent... Well, I am glad, I am always happy when people—for instance, I am told: "PACE represents someone there." I say, but I looked at the minutes of the sessions; they represent exclusively and strictly themselves. There is only the Ukrainian agenda there, not the Russian people.
Marat Guelman: That is untrue. For instance, you spoke about... Right now, for example, at the latest closed session of PACE, we delivered a report concerning alien passports, outlining that in a year, passports will begin expiring en masse...
Sergei: Wait, you claim that to secure an alien passport, I must sign some Berlin Declaration. No, so that my relatives remaining there in Moscow face immediate repressions. I will not sign any Berlin Declaration.
Marat Guelman: Wait, the Berlin Declaration is for those who want to become members of PACE. That was...
Sergei: No. Wait, it was stated explicitly there that the passports—these alien passports, the new Nansen passports they intend to issue—to secure them, one will need to sign this Berlin Declaration. I do not intend to sign it, much like thousands of other forced emigrants, because our relatives remained behind over there. And you want all our relatives over there to be designated as terrorists, extremists, and so forth? No, thank you.
Marat Guelman: You know, this question needs to be taken somewhere outside. Because I, for instance, simply record that perhaps this was voiced in some speech by Feygin or someone else, but it definitively did not enter the official record; therefore, it is simply a false assertion.
Sergei: Meaning these people—the PACE delegation—they represent no one...
.jpg)
Marat Guelman: Wait once more, each of them speaks out independently. You saw, there are individuals there—a Dagestani who believes a family can do whatever it wants with its... diverse individuals. We are talking about...
Sergei: I am simply saying that these people represent each individual themselves. I am very happy for my compatriots who located a purpose for themselves.
Marat Guelman: You are jumping around. But fine, I record what you just stated. It is a false assertion. The Berlin Declaration does not feature in a single document.
Sergei: Wait, can I finish my thought, please? I believe, I would... I am outright happy, genuinely happy. I harbor nothing against every specific individual who sits in PACE or who is a member of the Anti-War Committee. I don't. I truly think that I am sincerely glad for my compatriots who located a purpose for themselves and a permanent income, a livelihood, while being abroad. I have not located such a permanent income and livelihood. Meaning, mine is sporadic. Yes, from time to time I earn as a camera operator; from time to time I generate video clips for German corporations using AI—video clips, I mean—but none of this constitutes permanent employment. Meaning, I find myself in a rather unstable state, much like thousands, tens of thousands of Russian emigrants who found themselves on a foreign shore after the onset of the war.
Marat Guelman: Who is to blame for this? Answer me, say who bears accountability for these tens of thousands? Could it be the members of PACE? No, the question was completely about something else. The question was about the fact that you claim PACE represents someone, the Anti-War Committee represents someone—they represent exclusively and solely themselves. Meaning, these people are resolving their personal...
Marat Guelman: May I respond to this question? This is a serious challenge, actually, unlike what preceded it—whom does the Anti-War Committee represent and how does it function at all...
Look, first of all, no one inside the Anti-War Committee receives a single kopeck of capital. Neither Chichvarkin, nor Guelman, nor Khodorkovsky, and so forth. We all organized ourselves about three days after the onset of the full-scale invasion so that the voice of those Russians who oppose the war would be heard, preventing a narrative where the entirety of Russian society supports the war. Yes, we are famous individuals, and via our public status we said: "We represent those who are opposed." Meaning, our message was not that we secured a mandate from them, but rather: "Bear in mind, not everyone is for the war."
Subsequently, we navigated many diverse stages. We engaged in the advocacy of Ukraine; we engaged in assisting Russian citizens who found themselves... Meaning, our system of consuls still operates today, extracting individuals from complex situations in diverse countries. Today, we maintain our consuls in twenty nations who offer aid and ensure legal support. But indeed, you are right that the question of representation was continuously debated; diverse groups argued over who represents whom, and so forth. The Berlin Declaration was an attempt to compile a list of those who do not...
And these debates concluded when the Russian authorities leveled a new criminal case against us concerning the "seizure and retention of power." Following that, our colleagues in PACE and our colleagues in the European Parliament said: "Well, now there is no need to doubt who represents the oppositionists. Putin selected you, therefore it is not for us to argue with him." And we work with both the European Parliament and PACE.
Sergei: And I have a question. Look, you opened a gallery, an fine art gallery in Brussels under the aegis of the Anti-War Committee, about which you just spoke. Perhaps I fail to comprehend something. And you emphasized that this is not your personal project; it is a project of the Anti-War Committee. Perhaps I fail to comprehend something? Tell me, where is art and where are those questions that the Anti-War Committee should legitimately handle, representing us—Russians who found themselves abroad? And why specifically in Brussels did you open it—closer to the center of decision-making, as it is called?
Marat Guelman: Well, first: why did the Anti-War Committee open a gallery? Because it so happened that within the protest movement today, there are very many people of art. Not strictly inside the Anti-War Committee, but on the whole. Look at the impact: Pavel Pavlikovsky received an Oscar, Zvyagintsev received an award in Cannes, Pugacheva issued an interview. The reaction to these three milestones is greater than to all our PACE congresses and so forth.
The Anti-War Committee acknowledged a year ago already that within the protest movement, people of culture are highly vital. And we must acknowledge this fact. Precisely for that reason, when our work with the European Parliament commenced in Brussels, I proposed opening a gallery instead of an office, with our office occupying one of the floors.
How close is this to art? I hope that today, during a war, displaying protest artists is highly vital. Currently, we host an exhibition by Philip Dzyadko; everyone knows him for the “Izrasilovanie” project. He is a daring guy who operated inside Russia while it was possible. Subsequently, we will host an exhibition by Vladimir Tsesler. He is a Belarusian artist who is a member of their committee. Meaning, we want to display protest art—meaning we want to present political art as a form of art, but it has consistently constituted art. The most famous artist in the world today, Ai Weiwei, is a Chinese political artist who opposed the regime. Therefore, claiming that political art is not art can only be stated by an ignorant person. Why in Brussels—I responded. Why the Anti-War Committee—I responded. What relation to art—I seemingly responded. Thank you.
Sergei: Why are you more irritated by the protest actions of Pussy Riot and Femen rather than the very presence of official Russian state institutions at international venues?
Sergei: Why should it trouble me? There is the Biennale management, which deemed it possible for themselves to invite the Russian pavilion to exhibit. I believe that I see nothing bad or reprehensible in the performances of composer Sysoev or composer Retinsky, who were not noticed maintaining pro-war stances.
I am opposed, you see, to twisting the arms of that segment of the artistic world that remained in Russia for diverse reasons—and Marat concedes and conceded this in an interview with me. Someone has a sick mother, someone else faces alternative circumstances, but crucially, they didn't soil themselves via pro-war statements. There is no need now to twist the arms of all these people and crucify them outside the Russian pavilion, demanding: "Come on, speak out—are you for the war or against the war?"
Meaning, it seems to me that art to a certain extent must reside... Well, it must reside... Listen, let's take Venice, for instance, where we were. Well, let's cancel—let's simply write a collective letter under the leadership of Katya Margolis and cancel Titian. Titian, who painted portraits of all those bloody tyrants and thanks to that became one of the wealthiest men in Venice. Or let's cancel Leonardo da Vinci, who drew topographical maps for Cesare Borgia, one of the bloodiest individuals of his era, who waged wars of conquest. And for those wars of conquest, Leonardo drew him those topographical maps and engineered various fortresses for him. Let Katya Margolis simply cancel Leonardo da Vinci, or I don't know... And Botticelli was the favorite artist of the Medici clan—also a bloody clan.
Meaning, you see, nonetheless, I believe we must to a certain extent separate art from politics. If an individual didn't openly soil himself via bloodthirsty, pro-war statements, we shouldn't cancel him.
Marat Guelman: Not once did we label the names of these specific artists, because we are not opposed to artists; we are opposed to the participation of the Russian Federation at the Venice Biennale. The reality that they permitted themselves to be utilized within this cultural SVO—I don't even condemn them, because I am unaware of their life circumstances. Yes, perhaps they were forced to do so. We never spoke a single word against them.
And fundamentally, for my part, the sole... Well, I can offer my comment: six years ago, prior to the war, they selected film directors just to avoid selecting contemporary fine artists. Currently, they selected musicians just to avoid selecting fine artists. The reality is that within our environment—the environment of contemporary art—the level of reflection is very elevated. And therefore, locating individuals who, as Sergei suggests, don't reflect upon the reality that they operate on behalf of a bloodthirsty killer or function as a token ball in a game played by prominent figures—locating such individuals is exceptionally complex. Within our domain, these challenges are all pro-actively discussed; therefore, lacking trust in fine artists as a whole, they continuously seek out proxies to substitute them. They can occasionally substitute them via corpses—most frequently pushing Pushkin onto billboards; I recall, during elections in St. Petersburg, United Russia wrote: "Brodsky is ours." Well, because Brodsky cannot respond. Well, occasionally they utilize living people.
Sergei: Although Margolis, incidentally, canceled Brodsky as well.
Marat Guelman: I am unaware of her views, unaware. Margolis—you should have challenged her. You utilize the name Margolis so frequently that you should have challenged her to a debate instead of me. Well, why should I be accountable for Margolis?
Sergei: And are you familiar with the artistic works of Katya Margolis? What exactly does she produce during her hysterics on Facebook?
Marat Guelman: I possess her work in my collection at the gallery in Brussels.
Sergei: Are you ready to exhibit it if Katya brings her works to you, provided such works exist at all?
Marat Guelman: Katya Margolis—I possess her work in the collection. Katya participated in “SlovoNovo” prior to assuming her current status. In fact, her entire new status commenced when she penned a letter targeting “SlovoNovo.” That marked the onset of her battle with the so-called "good Russians." That is irrelevant. I am unready to...
Sergei: Meaning, you purchased her work to make her stop writing nasty things?
Marat Guelman: No, that was... No, it wasn't purchased. She gifted it to the collection. That is immaterial. That transpired prior to our relations terminating following that letter. But I want to state once more: Katya is accountable for herself, I am accountable for myself. Therefore, responding to the viewer's question, I state: I didn't inquire regarding their views because I comprehend that they function here, well, at best as a token ball utilized by someone playing a game.
Host: I don't fully comprehend what Sergei wants to convey personally to me, to Viktoria. Can Sergei formulate his stance on the Biennale once more? Is he in favor of absolute silence from the opposition regarding the theme of Russia's participation—specifically the state, in the form of the Russian house? Meaning, the opposition shouldn't have reacted in any manner?
Sergei: No, wait, guys, there is no need—let's separate these things. I stated, I articulated clearly—I failed to enunciate the word "articulated"—that the opposition is distinct. And these individuals who operate as commercial enterprises—Pussy Riot, Femen, it doesn't matter how—are distinct. Meaning, the Russian opposition, civic... They harbor nothing in common with the Russian opposition and civil society. These individuals represented themselves. It was a self-presentation; it was a PR stunt, from my perspective. Meaning, it is not the Russian opposition and not Russian civil society. It harbors nothing in common. Understand?
If all those people—some say 700 thousand, others say 800 thousand—if those people had located the capital for tickets to Venice, if those people had arrived, let's assume, with Russian tricolors—well, some form of... if I had witnessed genuine civil society there, the Russian opposition, I would have applauded them. I would have stood in the front ranks of that opposition. But these individuals pursued strictly their mercantile objectives, in my strictly personal view.
Host: How then to demonstrate to Putin that he is inflicting damage upon Ukraine and his own country? What form should the protest take? Or do you believe Russia can participate in international contests everywhere just as before and continue to do so? Fundamentally, another contest is coming up now, and look, she will exhibit her... Since the onset of the full-scale invasion in 2022, for instance, the opera “Boris Godunov” was staged at La Scala, attended by the entire Italian establishment, and nothing terrible transpired. How many such "cancelers" were there? Meaning, it seems to me that I stand sharply opposed to cancel culture in any form and in any manifestation, because...
Marat Guelman: Listen, you are conflating Pushkin and Putin. Look, “Boris Godunov” premiered recently in London, but the Russian Federation was absent there.
Sergei: The Russian Federation was absent. No one is opposed to Pushkin; everyone is opposed to Putin.
Marat Guelman: And what about Sokurov? From what angle?
Sergei: I am opposed to any cancellations.
Marat Guelman: Meaning you respond, you are in favor of the cultural SVO continuing? Understood.
Sergei: Why a cultural SVO? Why did you label it a cultural SVO? I was... I simply hadn't finished speaking. May I? You threw me off balance. I stand opposed to any forms of cultural cancellation because, as a rule, behind these political words and political actions, lucrative interests are nestled. This cancel culture serves to displace a competitor, to snitch on a neighbor like in a Soviet communal apartment. He was taken away in a black van, and I occupied his room. That is what cancel culture represents. Understand?
I will provide an example. I have a friend residing in Berlin who works at the Berlin Philharmonic, and another one works here at the Nuremberg Philharmonic, where I live, for instance. And they told me during our conversations that when they began canceling Russian performers—classical Russian performers exhibiting at these philharmonics—Ukrainians began doing it, and subsequently Ukrainians did it precisely so that they could immediately occupy their slot and tour the exact same program featuring Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, and others. That transpired in 2022. Therefore, behind any forms of cancel culture lies the mercantile interest of specific individuals. If they had canceled this pavilion—or rather, not shut it down but let Katya Margolis and everyone else and Pussy Riot, for instance, let them be accommodated by the Biennale management, believe me, they would have capitalized on such an opportunity.
Host: Marat, do you support the boycott against the Israeli pavilion?
Marat Guelman: I believe it is sensible. Furthermore, I want to state that prior to this, fine artists from Israel had all independently declined to participate. Meaning, they simply refrained from participating. This year, since a virtual Palestinian pavilion was established in the Arsenale, they also refrained from participating in their own pavilion and executed their installation in the Arsenale. But on the whole, I want to state that, of course, yes.
Host: Perhaps everyone should be permitted—all countries, Israel, Russia, all pavilions—if art itself rejects war and death, and speaks of peace, conversely establishing a dialogue that is highly necessary right now to halt the carnage?
Sergei: I align myself precisely under every syllable of that message.
Marat Guelman: The Russian Federation is waging a war and wants everyone to remain indifferent, ensuring that despite this, people deal with it here, there, and everywhere. European society is collectively, jointly opposed to this. We are opposed as well. Yes, unquestionably, these constitute two distinct positions. Meaning, one side says: "It doesn't matter that people are being murdered."
But I want to state one thing: the volume of cultural institutions destroyed by the military in Ukraine is massive, and an extensive list of artists has already been killed by this military, individuals who cannot participate. Therefore, for me, this is immoral. A Russian artist today who wishes to participate in European life possesses a massive volume of opportunities to do so—but without being under the flag of the Russian Federation, under the flag of a warring country. I repeat, I know of thousands of instances. Look at my own schedule on Facebook. Every week I have an event with my participation: either as a curator or as an artist. Meaning, we possess this opportunity to speak, including speaking about this challenge. One shouldn't speak under the flag of a warring country. That is the point.
Sergei: How many warring countries are there? Do you know how many armed conflicts are currently ongoing globally? Dozens. Let’s ban, besides America and Israel, let’s ban Sudan and alternative African nations waging war. Yet those African nations will participate in the upcoming championship.
Marat Guelman: I can offer strictly one response: the conflict between Russia and Ukraine concerns me, unquestionably, far more than all alternative conflicts.
Sergei: Yes, Marat, it concerns you. You state globally that all these warring countries must be banned. Well, let’s be consistent then. Let’s ban...
Marat Guelman: Look, a parliamentary assembly exists. There, incidentally, the full representatives of all nations debate matters. I was present, by the way—it is wonderful, highly interesting. They debate it, and when necessary, they speak out collectively.
Sergei: It is one thing to speak out, and a completely alternative scenario to cancel a competition or simply ban a cultural event featuring a given country. So far, I see they are strictly banning Russia.
Marat Guelman: Well, why are you focused on Russia? Putin is not Pushkin.
