If the regime is so undemocratic and oppressive that it wouldn't allow any social/political satire or even allegorical form of narrative which may imply criticism to the regime, then art may have a right to revolt against accepted "norms"of that society.
But if the regime is legally allowing its criticism in art, essays and journalism etc., then the artist or activists who behave too "radically" (namely, too aggressively breaking norms of social behaviors) in the name of democracy or the freedom of expression, will lose their moral bases. Such a behavior can't be accepted by that society which has affirmed the current regime and whose existence and development is dependent on that regime.
The performance of "Pussy Riot" in famous Cathedral in Moscow, which took place more than one year ago, seems to me too"radical" in that sense. It can't be interpreted in the context of art (because it's too primitive to be artistic not only in their skills but also in the strategy, if it had any). It can't be perceived as a form of political protest, because the cathedral is not at all the place for such an act in contemporary Russia. The Orthodox Church is still an important element for many people in Russia and they knew it well. They must have known well also that the Cathedral was once destroyed by Communist Party in 1930s and rebuilt during 1990s with the effort of artists from all over the country, as a symbol of the resurrection of spiritual values in the corrupted society.
Of course, they have a right to hold any kind of belief, criticize any concrete policy, politicians. But they can express their thought only respecting accepted social minimum norms, in other words, within the frameworks of such accepted institutions as "art", "social sciences", "journalism", "blogging"etc.
Such institutions are really accepted in contemporary Russia with democratic tolerance, and it's the fact that can be easily confirmed by simple internet surfing.. Political satire in art is legally allowed.
Any society has its particular laws to sustain minimum of social norms.
2 year sentence may seem too severe. But the combination of place and action they had chosen was such that brought an unnecessary conflict in the society. If they wanted to make such a little chaos (and such an result could be easily predicted with their educational level), then the sentence seems, personally for me, appropriate.
If related laws seem to be too stern, then it's not a problem of the current regime itself, but the problem of social norms sustained by them. But if the norms are based on the history of people and now are supported by them, then foreign journalism and protesters have no right to judge them.
But if the regime is legally allowing its criticism in art, essays and journalism etc., then the artist or activists who behave too "radically" (namely, too aggressively breaking norms of social behaviors) in the name of democracy or the freedom of expression, will lose their moral bases. Such a behavior can't be accepted by that society which has affirmed the current regime and whose existence and development is dependent on that regime.
The performance of "Pussy Riot" in famous Cathedral in Moscow, which took place more than one year ago, seems to me too"radical" in that sense. It can't be interpreted in the context of art (because it's too primitive to be artistic not only in their skills but also in the strategy, if it had any). It can't be perceived as a form of political protest, because the cathedral is not at all the place for such an act in contemporary Russia. The Orthodox Church is still an important element for many people in Russia and they knew it well. They must have known well also that the Cathedral was once destroyed by Communist Party in 1930s and rebuilt during 1990s with the effort of artists from all over the country, as a symbol of the resurrection of spiritual values in the corrupted society.
Of course, they have a right to hold any kind of belief, criticize any concrete policy, politicians. But they can express their thought only respecting accepted social minimum norms, in other words, within the frameworks of such accepted institutions as "art", "social sciences", "journalism", "blogging"etc.
Such institutions are really accepted in contemporary Russia with democratic tolerance, and it's the fact that can be easily confirmed by simple internet surfing.. Political satire in art is legally allowed.
Any society has its particular laws to sustain minimum of social norms.
2 year sentence may seem too severe. But the combination of place and action they had chosen was such that brought an unnecessary conflict in the society. If they wanted to make such a little chaos (and such an result could be easily predicted with their educational level), then the sentence seems, personally for me, appropriate.
If related laws seem to be too stern, then it's not a problem of the current regime itself, but the problem of social norms sustained by them. But if the norms are based on the history of people and now are supported by them, then foreign journalism and protesters have no right to judge them.
No comments:
Post a Comment