In contrast with previous years, this time around there has been quite a lot of controversy around the Russian Booker Prize, one of the three major domestic literary prizes, and the annual Kandinsky awards, which struggles to become Russia's No. 1 prize in the visual arts domain.
Quite a lot of people in the visual arts and literary circles, respectively, say that the prizes were given to the "wrong" guys, accusing the Russian Booker Prize winner Mikhail Elizarov and the recipient of the Kandinsky Best Artist of the Year award Alexei Belyayev-Gintovt of "wrong" ideological stands and even of "fascism."
Normally, it's not so unusual when people who fail to receive an award (or whose friends, relatives or proteges do) slam the winner, trying to explain to everyone that their art (or literature) is nothing more than plain crap. That's pure jealousy and that's understandable. But what troubles me this time around is that the winners are being criticized for defending "the wrong" values rather than their material.
Pretty much everyone knows that most literary and visual-arts awards are about favoritism, cronyism and protecting interests of a particular clique that - in smaller or larger degree - has control over any particular prize or award. And Russian book prizes are a fine example of that. In my columns written over the last couple of years, I have criticized the Russian Booker prize for being focused on only a small fraction of domestic literature - that covered by old literary magazines, - leaving out anything that doesn't comply with conservative tastes and values. For years, a small clique gathered around the prize awarded members of the same clique or people close to it. The arrival of the National Bestseller prize some five years ago had no effect on the Booker as it focused on a totally different, less traditional and conservative literature. But the introduction of the Big Book, a more cash-heavy and government-sponsored prize, two years ago was a major blow to the Booker, as the new prize encompassed just about the same type of literature as the Booker had done so far.
Some observers speculated that this year's Booker Prize's shortlist deliberately contained books that in previous years would have never made it, as the prize struggled to differentiate itself from the Big Book. That may or may not be true. But the controversy following the awarding of the prize to Elizarov's "Bibliotekar (Librarian)," a novel about a cult following around books by fictional mediocre Soviet author Gromov, which, allegedly, had a magical effect, proves that something within the Booker Prize clique didn't work this year. Reacting to that, people apparently close to the clique began dismissing the winning book as "fascist trash," probably referring to elements of nostalgia for Soviet times that were latent in the novel.
Still, a writer or artist must have a freedom of expression and he/she should be criticized for the artistic side of their works but not for being "ideologically wrong." And, similarly to accusations against Elizarov, criticism for Belyayev-Gintovt, who often uses Soviet symbols in his works, doesn't seem to be justified. People accusing the artist and the writer of promoting the "wrong" values and nostalgia for the Soviet Union, are in fact playing the same old Soviet game of "the right" ideology vs. "the wrong" ideology, which is ridiculous.
Those involved with or in any way related to the Russian Booker prize and the Kandinsky award this year should be proud that the two prizes showed some impartiality by awarding those who don't belong to "the insiders" and whose values and ideas may differ from those generally promoted by the awards.
But instead of that, people spit out curses against the winners and their works.
Meanwhile, some have already noted that the controversy around this year's Russian Booker prize and the Kandinsky awards might be a sign of changes in the literary and visual-arts circles and that some traditional values might be reconsidered. We'll see if that's the case. ■
By Vladimir Kozlov
