2023: Exhibition "Repentance"
— Why is your exhibition called "Repentance"? And why should a neural network participate in repentance?
“People have some clear prejudice about technical things. It seems to them that the art created by the machine is necessarily cold and mathematical. However, those who have encountered AI know that a neural network is like a child's brain. You can raise her with a sense of empathy and emotion. My next exhibition will be called AI Has A Soul. I do not want to make an exhibition that is contrary to the expectations of the public. It will not be cold and calculated mathematical art, but some kind of emotion.
Repentance is a powerful emotion. And, in my opinion, the idea was a success! It looked like a church. One can argue who owns it, but we achieved our inner goal, showed an emotionally sublime project. The fact is that now we live in two realities: one is the aggression of Russia against Ukraine that constantly weighs on you, and the other is a revolution in art.
– Is it related?
“It's interconnected within me, and that's why I want it to be interconnected in the gallery. The revolution in art has a much more significant time scale. Leonardo da Vinci had two notebooks. In one he made drawings, he was an artist, and in the other he drew mechanisms and was an engineer. Since then, any person has constantly asked himself: am I a lyricist or a physicist? Leonardo was unique, but people are basically either one or the other. However, now the figure of an artist is again the figure of both a techie and a humanist. He must be able to write algorithms, understand software things, be technically perfect if he wants to express his idea. This is one of the most important aspects that is happening now – the figure of the artist himself is changing.
The opening of a gallery dedicated to artificial intelligence is about the second. I want to be a participant in these processes, and not just an observer. I am from Russia, and it is impossible even for a while to put this war out of my head, so I decided that it would be right to make at least the first exhibition with a reference to aggression.
– And repentance is about the fact that we all need to repent?
– Psalm 50 is a listing of sins and a request for the mercy of recognizing these sins, a request for forgiveness. Artificial intelligence was fed Psalm 50. You communicate with AI using commands that have block content inside, and we took the main command directly from Psalm.
1994: Support Yeltsin at all costs
How does this relate to you and your personality?
– On the one hand, I share some responsibility, that is, punishment. But there is also personal responsibility, besides this collective guilt. I have my account to myself. The gallery simply reflects the very fact that the artist has two processes – aggression against Ukraine and a revolution in art – going on simultaneously. I try to realize my guilt and my responsibility in a different way: I talk to Ukrainian channels, I help refugees, we transfer 25% of our income to various Ukrainian funds. It is impossible to say that this exhibition is my repentance. This exhibition, as it should be, reflects a certain situation, namely: 2023 is a time of aggression and a time of revolution in art, and I just live in it. The gallery is a connection with art, while my other activity is related to the war. I became a member of the Anti-War Committee of Russia almost on the third day.
What do you think you are personally responsible for? If you look at what happened 23 years ago when you worked with the administration. The cutoff is 1999? Why are you ashamed now?
Probably since 1994. In 1994 and 1996 we feared a communist revenge and supported Yeltsin at any cost.
What does "at any cost" mean?
– The first mistake is the refusal of lustrations for members of the Central Committee and employees of the organs. In 1993, we didn't like the parliament, but we liked Yeltsin. And we treated what was happening, namely the siege of Parliament, with understanding. We should have ended communism. In 1996, before the presidential elections, Yeltsin had 2%, Yavlinsky 11% and Zyuganov 28%. Then at any cost it was necessary to make sure that Zyuganov did not pass. It turned out to be very painful for the country. Then they gave the Presidential Administration all their media.
At any cost, it was necessary to make sure that Zyuganov did not pass
– Is that the price?
“It's not just the media. They looked through their fingers at how the governors counted the votes.
– There, probably, there were also red governors who could also pull votes in their direction?
– It was necessary to make sure that the central and regional authorities wanted in unison. In the red regions, there could well be representatives of the central electoral committee, where they could grab the hand. When it was all over and the communists didn't get through, Yeltsin didn't want to give back the free media. He liked that all the media were blowing the same tune, which he had in his waiting room. We then realized that democracy is not the victory of democrats, but the preservation of institutions. I am now a citizen of Moldova, I was born there. And there the communists won, but at the same time the institutions of fair elections were preserved. Four years later, the Socialists won, and now the Democratic Party. We made a gross mistake, and I was a direct participant in all this as a co-founder of the Effective Policy Foundation (FEP).
1999: Support for Putin
What is your second mistake?
– Much less, but in 1999, too, there is my fault. Although I had nothing to do with elections and candidates. In 1999, when I was head of the headquarters of the Union of Right Forces (SPS), the elections to the Duma ended on December 11. And before the 24th there were presidential nominations, and the Union of Right Forces supported Vladimir Putin. Nemtsov then told me: "Well, Marat, someone must go to the headquarters." Pragmatically, it seemed right. Then Yegor Gaidar called and asked us to meet with his comrades from St. Petersburg. It's not that he was strongly opposed, he just asked us to meet. This delegation tried to explain to us that we are making a big mistake. Gaidar had great respect for these people. And we somehow treated them snobbishly. I won't name now who it was. Then they were from the Democratic Party of Russia, that is, those who were with Gaidar at a time when he was still prime minister.
– They are St. Petersburg and knew who Putin was in St. Petersburg?
– Yes. We confidently listened to them. The general mood was such that Putin would become president anyway, but it would be better for the Democrats not to have anything to do with this. By that time, the job had already been done. The main task was to lower everyone except Putin, turn them into clowns. By the end of December, everyone disappeared, but Putin remained.
– Sergei Dorenko did a good job of "working" on the images of Yevgeny Primakov and Yuri Luzhkov. And Zyuganov has been made a clown since 1996, there was already a proven mechanism.
– The whole Duma platform turned into a circus. The media showed that all those who participate in the parliamentary elections are circus performers, and Putin did not participate in anything, was the prime minister and "did things."
All those who participate in the parliamentary elections are circus performers, and Putin did not participate in anything, was the prime minister and “did things”
What about the Unity bloc? Were they also circus performers?
The whole site was a circus. There was some kind of game on the table where the Unity bloc had an advantage, but the presidential election was completely separate from that.
– Was it your idea?
— I don't know whose idea it was, but it was the essence of the future presidential campaign. I entered this campaign only in December and was already doing purely formal things. The thing has already been done. In August 1999, when Putin was appointed prime minister, 2% of the population knew him, and in December 60% were already well disposed towards him. At that time I was in charge of the headquarters of the Union of Right Forces.
– You had a big campaign and, if my memory serves me, you actively helped Sergei Kiriyenko with the Moscow elections, who then competed with Yuri Luzhkov for the post of mayor?
— Yes, I helped Kiriyenko. This is my own problem. I have long hoped that what is happening now is because he lost influence, because he was pushed aside. But I was presented with evidence that this tough line towards the opposition had the most direct relation to him.
– I heard that almost personally Kiriyenko made the decision to arrest Yashin.
– Yes. If you get into the shoes of yourself then in 1994 and 1996, then you can find an explanation for everything. And Putin said very different things. I am sometimes presented with: “You are now against the authorities, but then you were with them.” So this power changed 180 degrees, and I stayed where I am. But some signals still gave reality that something was wrong.
This power has changed 180 degrees, and I stayed where I am
2001: Channel One, temniks and Ukraine
– In addition to St. Petersburg, were there other moments?
“Putin is just the beginning, there were many more moments. In 2001, I left the Effective Policy Foundation (FEP), and in 2004 I simply left the political business. After 2004, I distanced myself as much as possible, and in 2012 I was in conflict with them.
– Until 2004, you were engaged in the media part and built Channel One with Ernst?
– On Channel One, I led the analytical directorate, that is, I prepared what they later began to call "temniks." I created detailed explainers for the week ahead for journalists who were often forced to cover things they knew little about. The second is the Internet Directorate, which was just beginning at that time.
— I remember that in 2005 you admitted that you were the creator of temniks. For the first time they appeared in Ukraine?
– For the first time on Channel One. In Ukraine, they were almost copied first for the Inter channel. I had such Igor Pluzhnikov there, the owner of the Inter channel.
– Your direct quote: "It [the temnik technology] is Russian, if we consider that the one who developed it, Marat Gelman, a Russian citizen, but it first appeared in Ukraine, and then here in Russia."
— We must see, in 2001 I participated in the campaign of the Social Democrats in Ukraine, and then came to the channel. Well maybe. I don't remember everything.
— You went to Ukraine and helped the Social Democrats with the campaign. Was it a commercial campaign or did you help the Kremlin?
– This is an important point. In Ukraine, there was a situation in which every politician had to have a Russian political strategist. And it is clear why: in Russia there were many elections, they were at different times, a market was being formed, that is, people for whom this was a profession. You can't just work once every four years. And when you have 80 regions and elections in each of them at different times, then this is already a market and you can work. There were such people in Russia, but not in Ukraine. They had an appropriate professiogram, their skills were suitable for dealing with elections. They were sociologists, journalists, lawyers and economists.
The first time I came there was at the invitation of Viktor Yushchenko, right after the Union of Right Forces. For the first time, the Democrats had a good result in the elections in 1999. Yushchenko was prime minister under Leonid Kuchma, but he was about to leave. And he had a deputy, Yuri Yekhanurov, with whom we began to work. Later, under Yushchenko, he became prime minister. We discussed everything at the first meeting, and they tell me: “We want it to be like the Union of Right Forces, only in Ukraine,” that is, a democratic party. I explained to them why it would not work: Yushchenko would make any game for himself that would hinder him rather than help him. In the end, Yekhanurov says to me: "I heard that you are also a gallery owner." I answer: "Rather the opposite, first a gallery owner." To which he says: “You know, Viktor Andreevich draws with us. Could you see his paintings? It turned out that Yushchenko is a painter, and quite a good one, making cultural painting. Then they told me that when he was the director of the National Bank, people were waiting for him in the waiting room while he was painting in his room.
So the first was Yuri Yekhanurov. And when nothing happened, one of those people who were our liaison introduced me to the Surkis brothers "Hryhoriy and Igor Surkis", who were creating the Social Democratic Party of Ukraine. Everything was fine there, except that they were not Social Democrats at all. And so the project was very interesting. This is the so-called "Kiev group" around the Kyiv "Dynamo", they decided that they would be social democrats.
– And did it work?
Yes, I ran them. This was the only time they entered Parliament in this form. I did a campaign for the Social Democrats and literally two months before the elections they decided among themselves that Viktor Medvedchuk would be the head. And I was against it, because it is wooden.
Fair words about Russian political technologists are that Ukrainians have some kind of relationship inside, and you came to make elections as a business project, get money, results and leave. In this sense, I did not pay attention to any other aspects in Ukraine then.
— On epaulettes including.
– If we talk about criticizing political strategists, then not a single political strategist has come to Ukraine without an invitation from a Ukrainian politician – Sitnikov to Yushchenko, Belkovsky to Yushchenko and Tymoshenko. Each had Russian advisers, who were called, invited, generously paid, more than their own. This was the topic of a separate conflict, but it is very important to understand that it was the Ukrainian politicians who wanted this, they launched it. There was no Kremlin then, the Kremlin had no interest at all at that moment.
This whole profession sucks. I then consoled myself with the fact that this is similar to the work of a lawyer. Here he takes on different cases and does not associate himself with the client, this is a mandatory process, blah blah blah. But it's one thing when the fate of a criminal is decided, and another thing when a lot depends on you. There will still be such a profession, but it seems to me that we were irresponsible precisely from the point of view of not understanding the consequences. It's like a game of chess. This profession makes you such a cynical person, but others become just as cynical. Yanukovych had an American political strategist, for example.
Did the profession teach cynicism?
– Yes, as if everything is happening on a chessboard, detached. The very position eats you up.
– You went as a political strategist, but you influenced a TV channel in Ukraine? And not just one?
— My customer was Igor Pluzhnikov. He financed the Social Democratic Party and at the same time was the owner of the Inter TV channel. At that time there was such Mustafin, Editor-in-Chief <Alexey Mustafin was deputy editor-in-chief since January 1998, and in 2001-2005 he was editor-in-chief of the news service of the Inter TV channel — The Insider> . Temniki is an attempt to build the channel's policy, to make it better and more informed. It seemed to Yeltsin in 1996 that since the tool is good, it should be used in order to lower it from the outside. If a temnik is made inside the publication (for example, there is an Insider, and after the meeting some kind of bulletin is distributed and information is added to it), then this is a real help to the journalist.
– Are there prohibitions, for example, that it is better to communicate with this expert, but not with that one?
– There is an expert column on the topic, but this is more of a hint. Suddenly, China is in the topic, and the journalist does not know a single Sinologist.
– When was it not a hint, but some kind of black list of experts who should not be called?
— I once built a structure, it can be used for anything. You can write that these experts are desirable, and those are not desirable. The important thing is that this is an effective way of managing. Everything was based on announcements. Pluzhnikov told me that after the final news program, Kuchma calls him and reprimands him. There were attempts to control from the outside before, but they were not so effective, because they were built in the form of emotional personal communication.
– So it turns out that you helped Pluzhnikov in his communication with the president, leveled the conflicts?
Yes, it helped keep the business going.
– And then you decided to transfer it to Moscow?
– I was invited to do the analytical management on Channel One.
Did you take it from somewhere or is it your idea?
“I have looked at documents from CNN, the BBC and many others. When there are more than 10-15 people at the editorial meeting, it is no longer effective. That's why big media companies are turning to technology. It is impossible to say that they just took and copied something. I was quite skeptical about journalists and their education. Compared to CNN, our temniks were thicker, because we had to upload more information.
Are you proud of this technology or are you ashamed of it?
— I want to make an important disclaimer. Just because I'm explaining it now, doesn't mean I'm trying to justify it. It cannot change the biography. But if there was a chance, I would prefer that these stories did not exist in my life at all.
Just because I'm explaining it doesn't mean I'm trying to justify it.
– Were you just interested or did you want to earn money?
– If there was no need for money, I would just do art and my gallery activities. From 1993 to 1996 there was a difficult period in my gallery, so it helped me.
– So you just turned a blind eye to something for the sake of serious income?
– Now it looks like this, and, probably, this focus is correct. You do something for the sake of money, and something because it is yours. I never called myself a political strategist. Я галерист, и я не участвовал в конференциях политтехнологов, не был членом их ассоциации, не считал это своей профессией. Я умел что-то делать и делал, но в принципе я галерист.
— Если оценивать это сейчас, то вам кажется, что это было неправильно?
— Да, безусловно. Точнее даже не то, что я что-то делал неправильно, хотя это тоже было в 1996 году, но и сама профессия сильно портит карму.
— Вы говорили, что из-за темников нивелируется сама профессия журналиста.
— Когда есть и редакционная политика, и темники, то вроде бы нет, но в целом — да. Мы предполагали, что журналисты непрофессиональные и нуждаются в костылях.
— Вы встречали какое-то сопротивление от тех, кому эти темники приходилось исполнять?
— Я такого не помню. Так получилось, что вот это превращение темников из внутренней редакционной работы в управление медиа было без меня. Темники, которые делались для «Интера», Кучма рассылал остальным каналам. Притом что политтехнолог — это неприятная профессия, но это не источник зла. Заказчиком является политик, он проявляет волю, а политтехнолог просто выполнил эту волю слишком рьяно. Политик хочет управлять СМИ и договаривается с владельцами, чтобы они принимали эти темники как указания. Сейчас хотят все на этих русских политтехнологов свалить, но теперь не время разбираться с этим.
— Не время говорить, что вы не виноваты?
— Это сложная штука, в которой основную роль играют политики, а не обслуга.
— Выбор технолога — соглашаться работать или нет.
— Это правильная постановка, потому что у нас тоже были дискуссии о том, работать ли с коммунистами или нет, особенно в регионах. Я хочу напомнить, что все эти ребята были выбраны не нами.
— Вы за Путина голосовали в 2000 году?
— Нет, не пошел на выборы.
— Вам не нравился Путин?
— Дело не в этом. Мой отец, Александр Гельман, в последнее время не пишет пьесы свои эти знаменитые, а пишет стихи. И у него есть один замечательный стих про лень и про то, как эта лень спасла его от многих недальновидных поступков. В позднее советское время он был очень востребован, его звали то туда, то сюда. И вот по прошествии многих лет он пишет, что благодарен своей лени за то, что она спасла его от многих поступков, за которые ему было бы стыдно. Мне очень понравилось это стихотворение, оправдание лени. Так что я везде, где мог, ленился.
— Вам было лень идти на участок?
— Да. Было даже исследование, согласно которому если в день выборов дождь, то демократы всегда проигрывают. Все потому, что значительная их часть не идет на участки, а коммунисты идут в любую погоду.
— Вы говорили, что была еще аналитическая дирекция, связанная с интернетом. Вам нравился «Первый канал»?
— Это были 2002–2004 годы. Я в 2004 году ушел потому, что стало понятно: вместо аналитики началось приказное. Понятно, что я какое-то время пытался этому что-то противопоставить, но это было время, когда эти изменения происходили, однако они не были абсолютными. Так что вы зря считаете, что было уже все понятно.
— У Бориса Березовского же не просто так отняли канал. Его отняли, чтобы поменять редакционную политику. И вы пришли на «Первый» уже после того, как его у него отняли.
— Путин и сам по-другому тогда выглядел. Есть очень важный дисклеймер о том, как я смотрю на это все сейчас. Сегодня есть люди, которые, как и я, имеют правильный взгляд на вещи, но каждый из них пришел к этому в какое-то время. Те люди, которые ко мне в 1999 году приехали из Питера, знали уже тогда. Потом был Борис Абрамович, потом Немцов. В целом нет никого, кто знал все с самого начала и с самого начала все видел, как есть. Одни поняли раньше, другие позже. Мои коллеги по Антивоенному комитету часто критикуют меня за то, что я так спокойно общаюсь с людьми иных взглядов. Я на это отвечаю, что наступит момент, когда все 140 миллионов или по крайней мере больше половины будут думать так же про Путина. К ним надо относиться, как к себе раньше.
После того как я ушел с телеканала, с 2004 по 2012 год у меня был период конформизма. Тогда я уже понял, что это все плохо. Но считал, что должен заниматься своим делом. Я был директором музея и членом Общественной палаты. Я всегда занимал свою позицию внутри этой системы и настаивал на своем видении.
2004: «Период конформизма»
— Публично вы были частью этой системы?
— В 2005 году я сделал выставку «Россия-2», Госдума хотела ее запретить. Одновременно были сорокинские «Дети Розенталя» в Большом <293 депутата Госдумы проголосовали за то, чтобы думский Комитет по культуре «проверил информацию о постановке на Новой сцене Большого театра оперы „ Дети Розенталя “ » — The Insider> . Я высказывался, но художественное высказывание выглядит безопасно для власти. Они тогда не реагировали на них как на угрозу.
Мне повезло, и ситуация с Pussy Riot меня оторвала. Я встал на защиту художников, потому что я считал, что это мой долг. И начался этот конфликт. Когда я защищал Pussy Riot, ко мне пришли в первый раз «политические» и сказали: «Ну, ладно, Pussy Riot получал двушечку, а тысячи людей судят просто так ни за что ни про что. Почему вы раньше не защищали?» Я ответил, что это солидарность художественного комьюнити. Мы тогда на защиту Pussy Riot подняли Пола Маккартни и Мадонну. И вот тогда, в 2012 году, Путин взял свой третий срок.
Я тогда занимался нашим проектом пермским <с 2009 по 2013 год Марат Гельман был директором музея современного искусства PERMM — The Insider> , я весь был в нем, очень увлечен. Не было такого момента — уйти. Понятно, что война — это момент, но и до того было много моментов. Для кого-то это убийство Немцова, для других арест Ходорковского. Для многих эти события становились последней каплей. Наша задача в том, чтобы сейчас таких людей стало большинство.
— Вы считаете, что вы внесли свой вклад в усиление Путина как политика?
— Я свой вклад не переоцениваю, мне чужого не надо. Список таких людей большой, и я не принимал непосредственных решений. Мое участие в 1996 году было гораздо больше. Я занимался антикоммунистической кампанией и был одним из ее лидеров. Второе — это Медведчук, партия выбрала его, но я с ним достаточно плотно общался и ему помогал. Это тот самый момент, когда, как вы говорите, главное — что хорошо платят.
— Но общий смысл ваших слов в том, что вы ничего такого и не делали, просто время было другое. Или мне показалось?
— Это очень важный момент, чтобы так не показалось. Я просто объясняю изнутри того времени, но это совсем не означает, что так оцениваю это сегодня. Лягушку варят медленно, но и порча приходит не сразу. Ключевое слово — безответственность. Ты совершаешь действия и не думаешь про далеко идущие последствия. Тебе важен сегодняшний результат, а не завтрашний день. Ты играешь в эту игру. Война изменила оптику, не только мою, то, что казалось безобидным, сегодня выглядит как удивительная безответственность.
В будущей России я бы сам себя запретил. Я готов помогать какими-то советами и комментариями. Когда мне говорят: «А вы вернетесь, а вы возглавите…», я говорю: если бы я был новым российским народом, я бы сказал, что не нужны нам Гельманы… с их грузом.
Взгляды меняются, мнения меняются, а биография не меняется. Да, сейчас ты совсем по-другому смотришь на Путина, стараешься компенсировать то, что ты сделал тем, что ты сделаешь хорошо. Но ты не можешь изменить свою биографию. Если была в биографии какая-то строчка, то она останется, даже если ты теперь главный борец против чего бы то ни было.
Поэтому лучше, чтобы вместе с Гельманом не пришли какие-то еще из прошлого. Лучше давайте отменим всех, кто участвовал в прошлой жизни, и в будущем не допустим их к власти.