I will not try to assess the Company's artistic value of Mikhail Savitsky — and would not argue with Sergei Hareuski that in commenting for the Freedom to use the term "genius" — if Sergei, for example, said, "brilliant portrait" or "genius peyzazhyst." Hareuski — one of the most interesting, in my opinion, art, and the right to such, albeit very risky assessment.
But Sergei said — "a man of genius," and such a definition, see, absorb the totality of all the qualities — both as creators and as a public figure (this figure Sawicki, of course, there was also that much — so consider yourself).
He was deeply interested in politics
Once an acquaintance of Vitebsk artist over a cup of tea impulsively regretted the collapse of the Union and expressed the view that "without WhiteRussian language, Maybe it would be easier. "In politics, this creator knew even less than in nuclear physics, newspapers have not read it, actually, there is little interested in the studio and outside of the family — and his philosophical statements did not reflect the attitude to it.
I knew little Savitsky personally, but had several conversations, and he did not make an impression, "the creators in an ivory tower." Of course, he was deeply interested in politics.
I remember in the early 80's, our teacher of journalism at Professor L. Efrosinia Bondarev led us to the studio Savitsky. Among other things (on the "other" — below), Sawicki said that just recently had the plenum of the Central Committee of the PBC introduced the new position of "industry" Secretary of the Central Committee (seems to build), and it is necessary to postpone everything else and painting a portrait of Lenin. After all, he made portraits of Lenin for the offices of each Secretary of the Central Committee — and the first and second, and the "industry", it was a request Masherova Masherova gone, but the debt remained. I bet that while 99 out of 100 artists would not answer, what is the difference between the "second" and "branch" Secretary.
"There is no doubt the fact that he did a great bunch of paintings gabelenav, a panel dedicated to Lenin. But — it is necessary to pay attention — he was never a communist and never struggled to make party career, as many friends on the shop floor. And it is also necessary to remember" — says Sergey Hareuski.
The current 20-year-old such an explanation may be enough to take Savitsky if not a dissident.
But — what is meant by the words "party pit"? Become a member of the District Committee, Municipal Committee, the Central Committee? But why? If the "non-party" People's Artist of the USSR Savitsky came to the area, he was met by the first secretary of the district — and the veneration of talent here was not in last place. The local authorities knew very well that the "non-partisan" Sawicki can easily go to the main "party" cabinet of the Republic, where, for example, "party" the rector of a university is to wait in line for months with no warranty at all to get into.
In fact, the presence or absence of a member of the Communist Party ticket in the creator of this level did not specify anything. Theater director Yury Lyubimov Taganka had a party card — and staged performances that party functionaries called "anti-Soviet." Sculptor Zaire Azgur had a party card, but the number of monuments communist leaders staged, saying, "All-Union" record. It is known that the system needed a "non-party communist" (especially from the sphere of literature and the arts), and such "non-Communists" were often more loyal to Soviet power than members of the party. Sawicki — one of those. And he knew how and for what purposes it uses the authority of the Communist government.
Flag of the Imperial forces
In a visit to the workshop, we also heard quite a long lecture about Zionism and Savitsky about Chagall. Later've read many statements Savitsky, who gave him notorious anti-Semites. Well, the word Savitsky that Chagall has only "a few unfortunate drawings and paintings of the shtetl levels" is difficult to explain even the "system" anti-Semitism — there might envy a colleague, whose paintings the best museums in the world consider it an honor to be and where he Sawicki missed.
The proclamation of the independence of Belarus in August 1991 Sawicki did not take, and even before coming to power Lukashenko has become the banner of anti-Belarus, the imperial forces. His interview saturated calls on the need to restore the "Three Ones people of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine," and similar sets of vocabulary, which was played on BT and "radyekroptsy" since 1992. (However, in 1995 Savitsky briefly stepped into the shadows of his son, who made a real terminator in a propaganda campaign to "referendum" against the white-red-white flag, coat of arms "race" and the Belarusian language. But, of course, the father does not respond for her son — as the son for the father).
Work as a political action
"You can remember with one side, what that afterdays of work, which he had built, there was a portrait of Stalin. But if we now take a closer look at this picture, then no paradnastsi you have not noticed, there is no sympathy for the character to be seen. And those who it was immediately ready to be criticized for this painting is not valid because likely this is a caricature of Stalin's order, a charge the artist for their smash his life "- says Sergey Hareuski.
Again, it is difficult to judge, considered Sawicki "smashed" their lives, with an enviable collection of the artist for the Soviet regalia (and if Lukashenka — and even the title of "Hero of Belarus"). Anyway, about the time of the Leninist-Stalinist empire he spoke positively. But I bet (even with art) that paradnasts or neparadnasts not a criterion mastatskastsi (and even measure the degree of political loyalty or if you want to sing along). In many paintings Nalbandian Brezhnev looked the way it had never seen the ordinary Soviet people on television or in the newspapers — informal, no tie — but the author of the paintings had a very definite image of a "court" of the artist.
However, it's not art facilities. The offer represents a portrait of Stalin in the exhibition on the liberation of Belarus from the Nazis, is seen clearly as a political act, as an expression of ideology. Just over thirty years ago was perceived by his series "The numbers on the heart," where one of the paintings depicted a near Punisher-SS as an assistant to a man with a Star of David. Now the then reproaches Savitsky for this painting may be incomprehensible — unless there were no Jews among the servants of the Nazis? Of course, they were. And why does Adamovich, who in "The Punisher" showed Belarusians who served the Germans, we do not blame a antybelaruskastsi? It should be remembered that in the 1970s in the Soviet Union (and, respectively, in the Byelorussian SSR) is not officially spoken about the tragedy of the Holocaust, that the Jews exterminated simply because they were Jews (I am, in any case, I do not remember any of this from school, or from the university). And in this situation, silence the tragedy of the Jewish people to show a Jewish servant of fascism — it was absolutely clear gesture that was perceived by many as anti-Semitism.
… Of course, the descendants of the artist's estimate of his works (unless these works stand the test of time). But this does not prevent contemporaries to evaluate and citizenship.