To the page Protection of historical heritage

To the main page

 

 

Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky

 

Metaphor for the Mayor

 

 

Published in Russian: .. . , . 6. ., 2002.

 

 

Attention!

The following text was translated from the Russian original by the computer program

and has not yet been edited.

So it can be used only for general introduction.

   RUSSIAN VERSION

 

 

Personalize an act of power - one of the oldest Russian traditions. Examples can be cited. "Peter I opened a window to Europe", "Catherine II conquered the Crimea", "Alexander II freed the peasants", "Stalin (or Marshal Zhukov) won the war", "Gorbachev banned vodka and so forth.

Of course, everyone understands that any act of any Manager is influenced by many economic and political factors. Any Director, taking a decision, take into account the views and close, and the electorate, and the world community. Any decision on the signature of the head, there are many approvals and consents. Yet the Russian tradition dictates phrase-metaphors such as "conquest of the Crimea by Catherine" at the level of the deep subconscious, and that we do not even laugh: how Catherine was able to win the Crimea?

That is what a metaphor to briefly and clearly Express the deepest essence of expression. Therefore, probably, in Russia and there was not such a ruler, who would not dream to write his name in such a phrase, metaphor, and on it, as on a white horse, to enter into history.

For Example, Boris Yeltsin. "He Defended The White House"? Not - two years later, he attacked him. "Yeltsin defended the White House, and then he himself and shot"? For the history of hardly - slozhnovato. However, Yeltsin easily - he was the first President of Russia, that's "white horse". And Mikhail Gorbachev not only "banned vodka, but also became the first and last President of the USSR. Result is not a "horse", and three, but their white somewhat questionable...

The regional level of power cannot be called deprived of Russian traditions. On the contrary - they are manifested in a more explicit and often exaggerated form. Of course, the memory of the people on the "regional level" shorter, but then entered into the history of Moscow Governor-General-Rostopchin with inspired by aviscam, and a hundred years later - it Petersburg colleague TREPOV with a bloody hand on the cover of a Gun...

In this regard, it is time to ask a key question: at what "horse" will enter the history, the present mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov?

Of course, it is difficult to simulate the view of unpredictable descendants. Yet, based on historical experience, some estimations can be made.

Let us say at once: if Luzhkov is hoping to make history with good roads and clean the streets, he is a great risk.

The thing is that the good people learn quickly and begin to take it for granted. And it is part of the standard range of mayoral duties - to build roads and to monitor the cleanliness. Moreover, the quality of roads could be better (in the left lane of the highway" - the Moscow ring road is asphalt has already taken the form of a rut, and overpass the Third transport ring on the Luzhniki stadium was warped from the fire of the two stalls). And on the streets could be cleaner, and in doorways.

In Europe, thank God, is now free to leave, so I can compare. And excellent organization of movement, and good (really good) roads, and bright (really bright) illuminated streets - normal life of any European city. And for that the grateful descendants monuments not erected by the mayors. No man-made or not made by hands. And the phrase is a metaphor "Luzhkov laundered Moscow" sounds somehow ambiguous.

Historical experience shows that the rulers of the monuments erected in two cases: when the military successes (God forbid) and under the patronage of "the arts and Sciences". You can laugh and remember the story-fable Saltykov-Shchedrin about how this most arts patron eagle and what came of it. Still, in the absence of hostilities and bloody revolutions this is the only chance for the ruler to enter the history of the "white horse".

To enter history in the "black horse" is also possible. Burn, as the Greeks, something priceless (for example, formerly the Lenin library, now the Russian State Library) - here's a "horse" is so black as he could be.

However, the realities of the day segodyashnego far more prosaic. Why "Leninka" burn? Are there few that "the Pashkov House" because of the endless division of property between Moscow and the Federation was "seven nurses and is in emergency condition, as near as if nothing had happened, new buildings for personal Museum "people's artist of the USSR A. M. Shilov"?

And why destroy the Pushkin Museum of fine, if you just put in front of the Museum "people's artist of the USSR I.S. Glazunov"? Can there be any doubt that the attendance of the Pushkin Museum (and, consequently, raising the role of the latter) fall several times?

Why demolish the historic city centre, if possible, this historic center so deface monuments sculptor Zurab Tsereteli and merchant turrets architects Mikhail Posokhin, Sergey Tkachenko and Dmitry Solopov that no "white knight" will not work...

Looking at the scale of change in the appearance of Moscow, one might Association half a century ago - although, of course, worthless compared with Stalin Luzhkov. Last worked in Moscow, terrible things. His conscience of our capital loss of architectural integrity and the mysterious "Moscow's atmosphere, which made the Moscow city, where it was possible not only to work but also to live. The phrase is a metaphor "Stalin killed Moscow", undoubtedly, has a Foundation.

Lazar Kaganovich, first Secretary of the MGK VKP(b), was an obedient executor of the will of Stalin. It, despite the demolition of many temples in the role of Herostratus progeny did not remember the words and no phrase is a metaphor, not stroke.

And Yuri Luzhkov, neither Yeltsin nor Putin was forced to pretend that in Moscow there are only three artists - Shilov, Glazunov and Tsereteli, and only one architectural style - "Moscow eclectic."

Yuri Luzhkov no one is forced to pass through the Moscow city Duma, and numerous expert advice and public Finance the construction of mediocre buildings and monuments.

Yuri Luzhkov, having huge financial (if in Russia the taxes somewhere and going, it was only in Moscow, where are the banks, and foreign companies and oil producers, and other "cash cow"), could do from Moscow's world city of architecture and design.

But Luzhkov chose to make from Moscow to Europe and even Asia, and tinkering merchant restaurant in pseudo-Russian style.

Yuri Luzhkov prefer to see in Moscow architectural style and architectural styling.

Yuri Luzhkov refused to open a personal museums Malevich and Kandinsky - proven geniuses of world scale, and "sweet" Shilov and "pseudo-Patriotic" Glazunov.

Yuri Luzhkov chose to give the creation of new museums of modern art at the "mercy" Zurab Tsereteli. Tsereteli give due - he is a brilliant businessman (like Luzhkov). But art and Commerce are incompatible. Yes, and monuments for posterity makes unselfish deeds, and not for lucrative deals.

It would seem to listen to the voice of the public is easier than to ignore it. It would seem difficult for each issue, far from the personal competence of the mayor (and the architecture and art are precisely such issues) consult with professionals, not servants.

But what will give way to approximate a location "mangers"? In the worst case Luzhkov, not possessing special knowledge in the field of architecture and art, will openly lie and, at best, slipped "opinion" some notebooks glorifier like Lev Kolodny or academic Glory Lena".

But to answer for our descendants to be no clerks, and the mayor. And in the end it may well be that Yuri Luzhkov (perhaps sincerely wish well to our city) will get from the descendants of the phrase "Luzhkov mutilated Moscow". Perhaps instead of "disfigured" will be "sold" or "humiliated"...

The court offspring tough and uncompromising.

  Sergey Zagraevsky

 

To the page Protection of historical heritage

To the main page