March 2012
«Presnya» Historical Memorial Museum
Transcript by Anastasiya Guseva
Initial editing by Oksana Voronina

Arseniy Zhilyaev’s website
Arseniy Zhilyaev in Wikipedia

What is your first work of contemporary art?

I started making contemporary art, when I was 17-18. They were complex theatrical performances, happenings, which were inspired by the Moscow Conceptualism, by the Collective Actions group, in particular. On the other hand, I was inspired by different media like the Internet. We made an opera performance. It was a complex show, with voices of dictators, merging and resembling the noise of the stadium crowd, with the simultaneous broadcasting of a sports event. It was a kind of the psychedelic conceptualist aesthetics.

What is the first work of contemporary art you have seen?

I have seen the first work of contemporary art in the Internet. I was lucky to have access to the internet in Voronezh early enough.

When?

It was the end of the 1990s. I was 14. Maybe, it was 1998 or 1999. At that time, I couldn’t comprehend what was necessary to read about the contemporary art, but I had access to the art. At that time, the internet content was mainly textual. Letov’s website provided reports of the Collective Actions group. The first things related to the so-called contemporary art that I had seen, were texts with several photos, reports about actions. I consider that it influenced upon me much. On the one hand, there was a textual content; on the other hand, there were cold reflexive actions. But the way of life in Voronezh reminded me of the 1970s, and it was extremely boring for me.
Now I can say that I have stepped away from these artistic practices. They are not enough for me. I have experienced some disappointment when I have seen such art alive. But the echo persists.

What made you feel disappointed?

It is hard to say. It’s all very debatable. For me, it is a project which has not established itself as an art. On the one hand, it is good as an original phenomenon, sort of Fluxus or Dada. On the other hand, many intuitional things don’t seem to be well developed on the very artistic path. I think it much depends on how the art will be interpreted, from what point of view. Everything will depend on viewers, art critics rather than on artists themselves. From the artistic standpoint, such practices are not enough for me. But the very method of working with material and asceticism appeal to me.

What is your education?

I graduated from Faculty of Philosophy and Psychology in Voronezh. First I studied psychology. When I was a second-year student, I learnt child psychoanalysis. At the same time, I started making art. In the university there was a library with free access to internet. I had an opportunity to read new books and attend lectures on philosophy. It was my first education. Later when I moved to Moscow, I entered the Institute of Contemporary Art of Joseph Bakshtein. Lectures were delivered by Stanislav Shuripa, who was my teacher. Later I studied in the Valand School of Fine Arts in Gothenburg, Sweden. But it was, rather, an artistic experience. We were provided with studios, where we made art and communicated with each other and other artists. We didn’t attend many lectures. When I started to make art more consciously and made my own projects, I started to reflect on the Soviet past and became interested in different industrial impulses of art.

What authors and what artworks are determinant for you?

It is difficult to call any names. At present, for instance, I am more interested in research of expositions of non-art museums like the «Presnya» Memorial Museum and experience of those who have made the museum a tool of their art. They are people from Duchamp, Broodthaers, to Kabakov, who are busy with such experiments now. For instance, socialist exhibitions, i.e. design, industrial or historical exhibitions, have been complex projects having aesthetic, documentary and enlightenment values. Today, few artists can boast of such projects. Perhaps, it is Thomas Hirschhorn. But he is a person of a different generation and other aesthetic views.

How do you think it is necessary to teach art skills?

Recently, I have made speeches in many conferences on art education. My current attitude is often non-understandable. As a rule, I argue against art education. I support self-education. It sounds strange during the educational reform period, when general school subjects are reduced to physical training, life safety training and patriotic lessons. Unfortunately, the Russian government does its best to destroy the education system in Russia. But on the other hand, there is a problem with bureaucracy in art and art education. Maybe, we don’t understand this, but after I have studied abroad, I feel it strongly. The art education must be open and free. It must keep pace with practice and co-creation with people who realize the educational projects.

For instance, we together with Ilya Budraitskis have initiated the Pedagogical Poem project in the «Presnya» Memorial Museum. It is an example of the educational project, providing lectures, seminars, discussions. It claims to destroy the hierarchy between the teacher and the student. It supports the idea of co-creation. Sure, it is difficult to educate and to bring up an artist. There is no single recipe. Any artist is unique. I think we should try to create the conditions for success.

What artist do you carry on a dialogue with?

I think that contemporary art is rapidly degrading and losing its legitimacy. There are people who I am growing up together and working together. But it is rather friendship. I am almost sure that the title of contemporary art will disappear in the nearest future. There will appear another art movement with its own laws. For me, industrial art is important. For instance, art of Sergei Tretyakov, or the distancing effect by Brecht.

I consider that the art which is trying to integrate political processes, is leading at present. The question is at what cost. Some time ago the Voina art group was undoubtedly important. But now just to show protest is insufficient for an artist. He needs a position, effective participation in political processes and to be ready to overcome art for real changes. The examples are Courbet and his work during the Fourth French Revolution, Tretyakov or constructivists, the Situationist International. The present situation is specific. If earlier when an artist made a radical performance, he was sure that it supported liberation movement. Today radical performances can be made to support fascist nationalist ideals. It means that something is going on. And something must be changed.

Are there artists who you consider your antagonists in art?

I think that the most dangerous and fearful art form is a fast food of the political protest. It concerns Actionism, which can’t see beyond its nose. If actionists send a political message, it does more damage than good. On the other hand, there is a formalist protest art, which seems to me a degrading mainstream. It is easy to make exhibitions of the protest art, to sell it to art collectors or people who want to make an injection of freedom. But it is an absolutely safe domestic art form. It seems to be a deadlock. I argue against this pole. But on the other hand, I would like to strengthen the pole of the radical actionism. It is like if the Voina art group became a real political force and struggled for real political changes. It would be «dealing for a rise».

Do you divide your art into any periods?

It was a Voronezh period, when I collaborated with the Frontier Researches project. It was an invented internet-based institute, which tracked different linguistic online and offline interactions. My first artistic messages were a part of the project.

When I moved to Moscow, there was a period of search of my own art form and art language. I can’t say that the period has finished, but I seem to be close. It was constructivist and post-constructivist. Perhaps, it was nostalgic.

The newest period is an attempt of radicalization in terms of the form of an artwork. An experiment with the institutional form of the artistic message, an attempt to deal with life-asserting principles and the «art/non-art» borders are important for me now. Elements of aesthetics of interactions have appeared. I produced the Radio «October» project last year. There appeared a more radical criticism of the contemporary art. It is a new period. It is in progress. I would like to use the type of the exposition, adopted from the socialist historical museum, to have an opportunity to speak about current problems.

What is your prevailing theme? What is your art about?

I think it is tracing the transformation of employment relations. It is art like industry in its different variations. It is an attempt to transform art into a tool for the real change of the life, to promote some ideals or to lead the class struggle.

What are your political views?

I have always been occupied with the politicized, critical, leftwing art. In view of the global political situation, I am a programmatic non-authoritarian socialist, Marxist.

What is your attitude towards religion?

I consider that religion is undoubtedly the opium of the people. But the problem is that we have to deal with religion until all contradictions caused by economical and ideological reasons will be solved. To deny religion is unproductive. Religion may have its own ideologies of liberation, progressive and regressive things. I think the mankind should not transfer its problems to the sacral metaphysical spheres.

What events, happened on your memory, do you consider the most important?

These are events of the 1990s. Of cause, they have influenced much on me. But it is difficult to trace back my child’s attitude to them. At present, the current events are important, of cause. It is a worldwide protest movement, associated with criticism of the current political system and the struggle for real democracy.

Has technological progress influenced upon your art?

Yes, of cause. I’ve already mentioned the internet. The internet is the biggest discovery. I lived during the period when there was no internet, and later it appeared. I think that the current generation of kids who are born into the internet-based society and start to communicate on the network from two-years of age, gets a completely new experience. The experience of horizontal open network communication is very powerful. All other things that I deal with are not related to new media. These are mainly means of communication, ways of creation of new communities, etc. The deep, root problems, which are important for me, are problems of art, which are not associated with the technological progress.

What art movement do you belong to? How do you identify the movement?

Several years ago, Valentin Dyakonov invented the term «new borings» and ascribed me to the movement. We spent some time playing with the term and pretended to be representatives of the new art movement at the end of the 2000s. There was a fundamental split in it, because the movement included too different artists, with modernists and avant-garde artists among them. Now this term, which nobody likes, lives its own life and reflects the sunset of the era in art. It is an art of stability, of open borders, of opportunities to learn abroad. But at the same time, it is impossible to formulate your thoughts, to express your political position, etc. What the future will be, I don’t know. But usually I say that I am a politically engaged artist.

What exhibitions that you have participated in do you consider the most important?

They were the Radio «October» project in PROEKT_FABRIKA and the Machine and Natasha installation. Unfortunately, it was difficult for me to reach an understanding with both Russian and international curators. However I had a positive experience. It was the Modernikon exhibition, organized by the Victoria Foundation, curated by Francesco Bonami and Irene Calderoni. It was a turning point. Perhaps, it was one of the best exhibitions of the Russian art during the last decade.

Previously the Russian art was presented as a kind of the surprise, post-colonial discourse. It was fatal for some curators, for Erofeev, for example. I think he was to blame that Russia was only associated with matryoshka dolls and bears. For the above exhibition, an international curator with his specific viewpoint was invited. He tried to present Russia as a part of the world map of art, where it occupied its niche. It was related to the historical avant-garde art, to definite art forms and aesthetics. He made it modestly and ascetically enough. It was a breakthrough for us, because it didn’t correspond to our image of conquerors, winners.

What exhibitions that you have seen are the most memorable for you?

I am afraid I have megalomania. There are few artists who I can call my teachers. There are few exhibitions which have influenced upon me. I remember when I was in London with a group from the Institute of Contemporary Art Moscow, I visited the Tate Modern and saw Rothko’s paintings. They impressed me so much that it evoked a psychophysiological response. Thus, I told everybody that painting can influence upon a viewer physically. It was a mystical meeting with art.

Also the First Ural Biennale with its main project, organized by Degot, Riff and Cosmin Costinas, was essential. It seemed important and dealing with many significant problems related to the contemporary art, its activities, labor problems, etc. Unfortunately, I could only watch its documentation in the internet and a catalogue.

What are you interested in, besides the art?

I finished a piano course in the secondary music school, but then I never played the piano. When I was a student, I was fascinated with the academic avant-garde. I even wrote a thesis titled «Features of perception of tonal music by schoolchildren and influence upon figurative rank». Once I was much interested in the 20th century academic avant-garde, but later I attended a concert of one of the American folk singer. It was a stout man from Los Angeles, who played the Casio digital piano. He sang emotional songs about life. They were very melodious. The singer mumbled something into a microphone. I stood and listened as everybody in the concert. And when a melody sounded, the audience was overflowed with emotions and people cried. I realized that it killed the whole avant-garde music. It was difficult to deny. Thus, there was something different what I had to aim to. Now I want to make a project about Cornelius Cardew. He was a follower of Stockhausen, who radically changed his mind in the 1960s. He published several angry critical pamphlets against the academic avant-garde music. He accused the avant-garde composers of being isolated from the social reality and urged them to go to meet the people. He became a Maoist and composed different folk songs with folklore motifs. Later he tried to establish a Marxist-Leninist party in London, but died under unclear circumstances in the 1980s. His personality was very odious, interesting. And it seems to me that he is a model for contemporary cultural workers. It is rather funny.
In respect of cinema, in recent days, I have watched many different Soviet drama films.

What annoys you most of all?

It’s a difficult question. I hate to live in the country, where its leader insults its residents. The leader, who speaks that, if you don’t like, you can leave. Thus, it means that to gain profit from selling oil and to transfer money abroad you don’t need 150 million people, it is enough to have 1 million people, who will live behind a 7-meter fence and be protected by air defense. And everything will be alright. Thus, there is no need in education and others. It annoys me. I think it is wrong. The lie related to the Russian and international politics annoys me also very much. With respect to the art, it is an ambiguous issue. The art is artificial, and it is its fundamental quality. I think it operates on the liar paradox, who says «I am a liar». Unfortunately, our politicians don’t do even this; they are not capable to say this. It annoys and scares me.