BOYCOTTS AND MANIFESTOS. POLAND, RUSSIA, UKRAINE

"BOJKOTY I MANIFESTY. POLSKA, ROSJA, UKRAINA"
Author: Joanna Wichowska
Translator: Beata Marczyńska-Fedorowicz

1. 
When it comes to interests, Ukraine does not exist. No matter if these are the interests of the French exporters of warships, German banks, the City of London or Polish curators and managers of culture. Reality can be ignored in the name of interests. Of course one can – shocked by the murders committed in February on the Maidan square – organize a reading of Shevchenko or Kurochkin somewhere on a small scene or a balcony in a theatre. One can put out charity boxes in the foyer and collect money for the wounded Ukrainians and the families of those that were killed. One can – a couple of months later – lament the “escalation of conflict” in Donbas and the “complicated geopolitical situation,” one can quote Russian intellectuals horrified at the abstract, meticulously universalized and, necessarily, transnational “barbarism.” One can invoke democracy, Europe and the subversive power of art and proclaim that the alliance of the three will deliver Russia from the path of imperial aggression. And finally, one can be indignant over the fact that the Polish Year in Russia has been cancelled, arguing that it is the good (pro-European) Russians and the innocent Polish people who are curious of Russian culture that will suffer the most.

Ukraine disappears from view somewhere along the road, as it has disappeared many times during various, more or less bloody, historical struggles between Russia and the rest of the world. Just as it disappeared in the Second Polish Republic, reduced to the role of a half-witted peasant cousin who was never invited to the Polish lordly mansions. Therefore, Ukraine does not exist. All that remains is the terrifying but, at the same time, fascinating Russian empire (mysterium tremendum et fascinans) that is simply unfathomable without some vodka. And what remains are the interests.

2. 

The disputes over the decision to cancel the Polish Year in Russia and the Russian Year in Poland intensified in March, following the annexation of Crimea. “Cultural isolation of Russia benefits Putin, as it weakens his natural opponents – the pro-Western intellectuals and artistic circles” – argues Roman Pawłowski. A bit later, in “Notes na 6 tygodni” (“Notebook for 6 weeks”), Joanna Warsza, the curator of the Public Program of the St Petersburg edition of the Manifesta Biennial, advised “not to isolate ourselves and not to despise, not to enforce the condescending position of the people of the West bemoaning a barbaric maneuver of a country which had already seemed «so normal, » not to wallow in our righteous indignation” and to “produce pluralism, difference and subtlety.” At the same time, Grzegorz Laszuk (Komuna//Warszawa) has drawn an analogy very close to Kremlin’s heart, reminding us of our tolerance towards “unlawful and aggressive military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq that resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties…,” using twisted logic and arguing that “the call to cancel the Polish Year in Russia is an empty gesture of political infantilism, brought by the otherwise justified outrage at Russian aggression in Ukraine and the anti-democratic policy of Putin – another politician with a small dick.”

The source of demagogic arguments such as these lies partly in comfortable ignorance, partly in wishful thinking, but mainly in a pragmatic and egoistic calculation of profit and loss. If it is possible to use government money (both Polish and Russian) to fund an exhibition in Russia or to enhance curatorial reputation by „building bridges between the East and the West,” then why would anyone consider giving it up? For the sake of believing that cultural acts can never be politically neutral? For the sake of solidarity with a neighboring country that, in reality, does not exist (the only thing that exists are the photos of planes shot down over its territory)? For the sake of fundamental decency that forbids us from taking part in bloody tsarist rituals? For the sake of values that sound so faint and sentimental that one fears being ridiculed even before naming them?

3. 

Let me repeat the obvious. The Polish Year in Russia was an event organized by the governments, based on official agreements signed by the representatives of both of the countries and was to focus on presenting Polish art in Russia (and – basing on the beautiful principal of reciprocity – Russian art in Poland). The decision to cancel it is not, as Roman Pawłowski tries to present it, a boycott of the pro-European Russian audience and the anti-Putin Russian artists. It is an act of refusal to legitimize the actions of the Kremlin administration which is responsible – let me remind those who might have forgotten in the heat of sophistic digressions – for the occupation of Crimea and war in Donbas, which resulted in thousands of refugees, hundreds of casualties, hundreds of hostages, shot down airplanes, the Ukrainian ones and the one that weighted so much because it was not from Ukraine. Organizing the Polish Year in Russia would mean that the Polish government, cultural institutions, artists, curators as well as managers agree with the rhetoric according to which Ukraine is in fact Little Russia, and a fascist state at that, the Great Patriotic War has never ended, Europe promotes homosexuality and masturbation of 6-year old children, Poland, Lithuania and USA train nationalist fighters for the Maidan square, Ukrainian military crucifies 3-year olds, and the main idea that binds the empire together is the project of the Great (God-fearing and Powerful) Russia. It would mean that they can turn a blind eye not only to Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine, but also to its internal affairs and acts committed against the citizens of its own empire: from drug addicts with no access to methadone, countless HIV carriers, millions of children living in the streets and stations of the Russian cities, through LGBT people deprived of their rights and ethnic minorities from Caucasus suffering at the hands of specialized troopers, up until NGO activists who are officially named agents of foreign states, the intimidated journalists and the directors of cultural institutions who are controlled and kept in check.

4. 

„Culture is not an effective tool against the Kremlin” – argues Roman Pawłowski in his newest lament over the cancellation of the Polish Year in Russia. Severing the ties of cultural collaboration will not put an end to the flow of weapons through the Russia-Ukraine border – he states. If so, then why should we bother? Let the weapon transports flow, and at the same time let us organize a couple of performances in Moscow, for example in the Moscow Art Theatre run by Oleg Tabakov, a faithful supporter of Putin, who has proven himself in the heat of many ideological battles. But let us not throw stones that easily: Tabakov may be forgiven, because he has staged Bogomolov’s plays, and they are widely known for their critique of Putin’s system. Failing to stage performances in The Moscow Art Theatre will change nothing in the problem of Russian mercenaries fighting in Ukraine; however, staging them has a chance of influencing the Russian society. So where is the dilemma here?

The Russian society is primarily influenced by the regime-controlled TV channels. Claiming that Polish performances, concerts and exhibitions can compete with methodical, unceasing and overwhelming propaganda – is a cynical act of naivety.

The problem with culture in Putin’s country is that the Kremlin takes care of it. Culture in Russia is being observed, overseen, censored and corrected. The letter of support for Putin’s policies and his aggression in Crimea was signed by many legendary artists who are known and renowned, also abroad. Guest concerts of the Ukrainian band Dakh Daughters are discussed in the parliament („Russia cannot finance a performance by subversive nationalists from Kiev”). The Duma is now debating on projects of restrictive laws that will regulate cultural institutions and organizations. In different parts of Russia, events such as the premiere of “Crimea,” a soviet play from the WW2 are being organized. The event will take place in the Sankt Petersburg Opera and is advertised as an opera-meeting where the viewers can join and sing patriotic songs with the artists.

Paraphrasing Pawłowski: culture is an extremely effective tool for Kremlin’s interests. Putin takes great care of the ideological background of the regime. That is why he values culture and attends to its shape. He knows how to control it. Following the proven models created by Stalin and Goebbels, he uses it effectively to his own propaganda ends. He does it together with his faithful supporters – e.g. the heads of prestigious cultural institutions, the same people who took part in the planning process of the Polish-Russian cultural exchange.

Fears that the Kremlin will use the cancellation of the Polish Year in Russia for its own purposes – as the validation of their thesis about the aggressive anti-Russian policies of the West and the corruption of its culture – will definitely come true. However, an official cultural collaboration organized by the governments would undoubtedly serve the propaganda even more. Putin’s information machine would grind everything to suit its needs. After going through the machine’s gears, what would have been left of the cultural events that were to be exported to Russia as part of the Polish Year, even the subversive ones? More arguments in favor of the current ideology.

5. 

Speaking of dilemmas. Joanna Warsza has been expressing them in every interview conducted during the last couple of years. First, it was Crimea, then Donbas, now the Malaysian airplane. What to do? Continue working with the government-funded Hermitage gallery, together with Kasper König, the curator of Manifesta, who cut himself from “cheap provocations” and “making a particular political statement” after the Crimean events, or give in to peer pressure (artists such as Paweł Althamer and Dan Perjovschi have quit the program curated by Warsza, many art critics and artists called upon others to boycott the St Petersburg edition of Manifesta) and leave?

The dilemmas of the curator of the Public Program of Manifesta are not unsolvable. One has to face the situation and use it to study the efficiency of art – says Warsza. One needs to search for dialogue, call for democratic pluralism, unearth inconvenient themes, inspire and make the society more politically aware. “We have entered the territory of the authority and we are trying to use its language in order to weaken the very language. Now the authority has to manoeuver and they are in an uncomfortable position.” Warsza’s position is, on the other hand, very comfortable – she is not in any danger and is free to create her image of a Wallenrod, a self-sacrificing hero working behind enemy lines. Unfortunately, her alleged heroic diversion turns out to be ridiculous and tragically futile. The language of the authority does not lose any of its power, and her territory is more like a treacherous swamp that engulfs the good-willed artists invited to Manifesta.

“The snow brought to St Petersburg from Sochi is melting in front of the Winter Palace. What can the authority do about it? How could they censor it or oppose it? Some projects can stand up to the machine of propaganda and obsequiousness.” But can they? It seems improbable, especially when the curator, contrary to her own declarations, takes part in the censoring process. The propaganda machine never falters or stops, not even for a second. “Golden Snow of Sochi,” a performance by Pavel Braila “evokes a livid reaction amongst the viewers, which is connected not only with the Olympics, but also with the hot, summer day” – quotes Warsza under a photo of the event posted on Facebook. How nice.

On the Manifesta website, a sculpture of an Estonian artist, Kristina Norman, is described with shamelessly accumulated euphemisms: „The idea came from the unfinished Christmas tree from Maidan Nezalezhnosti in Kiev. The placing of the tree in full summer might seem unusual, as is the current alarming political situation of the escalating conflict, growing distrust and aggression. The tree, which is usually associated with family gatherings and love, calls up for ceasefire and peace, rather than nonsensical construction of one-sided truths.”

Norman’s installation comprises of the Christmas tree complemented by a video recording. The video presents Alevtina Kakhidze, one of the most prominent artists form Kiev, standing at the St Petersburg Palace Square and describing the topography of the Ukrainian Maidan.

Not to leave any doubts about the cynical process of intercepting meanings in which Joanna Warsza consciously participates, I will cite the director of the Hermitage Museum commenting the piece by the Estonian artist: “The metal construction of a Christmas tree standing in the corner of the Palace Square (…) evokes the holiday celebration that did not take place. The process of constructing the tree in the Kiev square was never finished. The square turned into Maidan. And Maidan gave rise to chaos. We hear a warning expressed in the language of art: beware! Innocent entertainment can start a riot. (...) The intelligent and emotional monologue (by Alevtina Kakhidze) is addressed to people who already know what happened in Ukraine – how a joyful square turned into a bandit rubbish pile. Quite frightening. The unfinished Christmas tree is a warning. Carnivals are not innocent. And the Palace Square remains unprotected.”

This sums up the efficiency of art that is courageously studied by Joanna Warsza in St Petersburg. The results of the study are simple: yes, art can be most efficient, especially when justifying acts of a regime. The artists are the ones who were tragically defeated in this distasteful situation – they believed the curator when she said that they are going to participate in the act of defusing the system, and ended up as the authors of projects that were seamlessly and painlessly incorporated into the official rhetoric of Kremlin’s institutions. The potential subversiveness of Neuman’s or Braila’s works has been neutralized, the Christmas tree exclaims “beware!” to the St Petersburg spectators, and the pristine snow brought from Sochi was not stained with a single, even symbolic, drop of blood.

6. 

Not everyone wants to build a career, become a hero or assert the rights of the pro-West Russians to experience Polish (and Western?) culture. Some just act out of spite. Those most involved, angrily rebellious, deeply conscious and acutely intelligent among the Polish artists and critics will not fall that easily for the herd instincts.

I can already hear the ironic comments made about the government’s decision concerning Ukraine and the cultural contacts with Russia (Ukraine does not seem to concern them much, but Polish cultural policy does – just like the opportunity to display their works in one of the Russian cities). If our government cancels the Polish Year in Russia – than it is just another proof of its incompetence, an empty gesture, simple sable rattling. If the majority of the media, led by the opportunistic “Wyborcza,” disgraced by the long standing support for neoliberalism, inform about the porous borders used to smuggle guns and soldiers from Russia to Ukraine, about the airplanes shot down with Russian weapons, about Putin’s authoritarian regime that threatens Ukraine, Poland and Europe – then it is ours, the rebellious artists and critics’ duty to question this kind of news. Confronted with the russophobic noise present in the media and the parliament – we must prove that we are thinking in a clear and critical way, that we are keeping an eye on the government and the media, that we will not be manipulated. Indomitable individuality is the only attitude that can be adopted by conscious, involved artists. You can always interpret the facts so that they fit the views. And fit the image of a rebellious, critical artist. But if the facts don’t fit the image and the views – then screw the facts.

Why should anyone bother with the facts anyway, if there are ready analyses made by the representatives of the Putin-fascinated, reality-blind, young and courageous left wing (stating that in Kiev, the fascists and nationalists, deluded by the American and European capital, blindly push for the European Union to replicate the system based on the oppression of the working class, period)? Why would anyone try to understand (by at least reading news from different, and I repeat: different sources), if one can crack a blissfully and politically incorrect joke instead and announce, for example on FB, that he or she is looking for a Ukrainian to collect debts (a fine joke, especially in the context of the Maidan events). The most important thing is to identify the current trends and thinking automatisms and to picturesquely pose oneself across all of them and then strike – no matter if the blow is aimed at the comfortable social establishment seen during progressive exhibitions and premieres, or at everyone who (obviously driven by herd instincts and hypnotized by the photos of the Kiev revolution) calls for a strong response to Kremlin’s actions, also in this humble, little field of culture cultivated with much effort and insufficient funds. And while contesting the generally accepted truths, one can travel to Russia and even earn some money. Ukraine does not exist. There are only interests.

However, if any of the subversive dissenters would like to learn the facts – I recommend courses in Kiev. For example, in occupying public buildings, such as the house of the Ministry of Culture.

7.

The decision to terminate the 2015 cultural collaboration with Russia does not constitute a grand, noble gesture on the part of the Polish government. As many others, this decision is probably based on calculations and interests, behind-the-scenes talks with Americans, Germans, the British and others, it is definitely based on the Malaysian airplane shot down with Russian weapons. What is more, it is a decision that has to be commended even by the usual suspects from the PiS opposition, who traditionally utilize the anti-Russian and anti-Soviet resentiments among the Polish people. It is difficult to live at a time when one has to agree with the enemy, and the most horrendous conspiracy theories find their own conclusive evidence.

The decision constitutes atonement for the bizarre declarations made by the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in April („We would like to separate the cultural and social exchange and the political aspects as much as possible”). It is a significant attempt at (at least partial) withdrawal from the spectacle of hypocrisy that has been tirelessly performed across Europe since March. It is a step back which is, in fact, a step forward.

Polish curators and managers of culture who expected subsidies for their plans and projects have suddenly lost their roles in the spectacle. However, nothing stops them from slightly altering its dramatic tension. Instead of digging in their heels, twisting facts, exceeding at relativistic thinking and finding more demagogic excuses for their cooperation with the regime and for pursuing their interests, instead of posing as national heroes sabotaging the Kremlin system with critical art, they ought to focus on searching through the masses of ardent Putin supporters to find those who are ready to speak openly about him, about Russia and Ukraine. They are the ones who need support and the ones who can teach so much. They are the ones we should be working with. The collaboration cannot be an export of Polish culture to Russia - conducted according to the best corporate guidelines and within government programs of cultural exchange.

JOANNA WICHOWSKA specializes in theater – both in theory and practice. She acted in performances in theaters such as Węgajty, Gardzienice, Double Edge Theatre, she was the literary director of the C.K Norwid Theater in Jelenia Góra. She works with “Didaskalia,” is an active member of the Association of Culture Practitioners (Stowarzyszenie Praktyków Kultury) and is a co-curator of the East European Performing Arts Platform projects.

The Boycott of Manifesta

Manifesta, the European biennale of contemporary art, has been organized since 1990, taking place in a different location in Europe every time. The decision to organize the 10th edition of Manifesta in St Petersburg has been very controversial due to human rights violations in Russia and the annexation of Crimea. During the preparation phase, the indifference towards the political and social situation in this part of Europe expressed by the event’s curator, Kasper König, has also caused some controversy. Szto dielat’, a Russian collective invited to participate in the Manifesta, resigned after the Russian aggression in Crimea. Other artists (e.g. Paweł Althamer and Dan Perjovschi) have also withdrawn, and organizations such as the Dutch AICA (International Association of Art Critics) have called upon others to boycott the event.

The discussion about Manifesta is connected with the discussion on the cancellation of the Polish Year in Russia. Is it ethical to work in Russia today? Can we achieve more by boycotting the country or, on the contrary, by supporting the free minded Russians, even for the price of compromises?