"Culture in Central Asia in «The Transition Period»:
Breaks, Linkages, and New Cultural Identities"
The disintegration of the USSR and the collapse of the Soviet socialist model of culture entailed paradoxical cultural situation in Central Asia. The culture of the Soviet Central Asia, internally heterogeneous and contradictory (as other analogous cultures of a complex imperial type), but unified due to its cohesive ideological grounds and artistic principles of cultural policy – fell apart and scattered in different directions. One of its «parts» (conventionally speaking, - «national in form») inevitably and energetically returns to its ethno-national sources, forming a new «authentically national» type of culture. The other part - «international in content» – moves towards globalized Euro-American mixture. Moving away further and further from their once uniform ideological-artistic bases, it tries to overcome the «lagging» behind the «global artistic process». First and foremost, it tries to catch up with the forms of contemporary art that were «not mastered in due time», «prohibited», «unknown» and etc.
During this process, many interesting queries and discoveries take place, though quite often they are limited to expansion of personal cognitive worldview of an artist (who earlier had no access to the art samples of contemporary western artists and now discovering with enchantment these unknown «worlds»)(1). New achievements are concentrated predominantly in limited high society circles, gradually moving to glamorized environment, organized by «new bourgeoisie» and serving small (increasingly the same) circle of intellectual elite. The importance of these «innovations» seems to be strongly overestimated by some (active or leading) art critics and «talking artists» of our countries (which is quite noticeable, for example, in Uzbekistan). A certain trend and hypertrophy emerged within the professional circles of art critics to evaluate and praise excessively new contemporary art. This is quite understandable in the context of continuous and almost complete break-down and degradation of the regional centers of artistic culture and the blossoming of primitive ethno-cultural forms (sometimes through direct transfer to the stage, into scores and other ceremonies and rituals of distant past and present times). On the one hand, there is the democratization of forms and methods of contemporary art expression (minimal set of devices and unexpectedly simple materials), on the other hand, as compensation for this «primitivism», there exists significant interpretation-reasoning. The situation reminds us of the ante-mortem practices of a «big shaman» who utters half-consciously the puzzling, mysterious, perhaps talented but unclear sayings, hardly digestible by the wide audience.
Within this context (from the point of view of the current globalist perception) the former USSR looks like a very nice «monster» – restrainer of cultural-historical and artistic processes, while the USA and Western Europe appear as the accelerators of this process. The USSR is now perceived as consistent custodian of different traditional cultural values (both classical European and Eastern – also classical and folklore) with high content of ethical origins. The latter coincided with domain foundations of different types of folk cultures, «folk perceptions», the majority of which have already been destroyed or transformed in the West.
In the Soviet cultural policy, different layers of cultural heritage elicited different attitudes; traditions were belittled, studied and changed into new forms; they were subjected to secularization and aestheticization. It is known, for example, that the avant-garde art had undergone more limitations than others. But this, in turn, stimulated more interest to it and forced artists to work in the conditions of searching for very complex synthesis, aligning technical innovations and formal techniques to fit ideological content(2).
The major principle of protection in the USSR cultural policy was conscious prevention of commercialization of culture and art – the principal enemy of the principle of socially useful content. Strict defense and limitation of traditional culture from the commercial principle is one of the main features that distinguished the Soviet artistic culture from the Western cultural model(3). The rest, if necessary, adjusted and survived in various forms and shapes.
Consequently, it is hardly surprising that the main direction that development took in post-Soviet Central Asia in the so-called «transition period» has been the «construction» of art market with most diverse, including exotic and primitive, methods. This construction has taken different shapes in each of the new states of Central Asia. But it is mostly market that dictates the ongoing changes in art itself, in creative thinking as well as in the direction of connections and interactions (both regional and external). I intentionally omit the aspect of content, as it is not so important and essential in the current situation. On the contrary, any mention of socially significant features of art, of its ideational aspects is most often perceived as the manifestation of anachronism and conservatism, as a rudiment of the Soviet totalitarian thinking, as some kind of post-modern disconnect. Moreover, while we have been mulling during the past two decades over the legacy of the «damned socialist realism» imposed by the ideological system of the Soviet state, which suppressed the creative initiative of the artist, curators and art collectors (mostly western, American but also «local») have quickly set up a market to sell the works of socialist realism created in our countries during the «stagnant decades».
There are different manifestations of market; its condition is evaluated differently in each of Central Asian countries. Lively discussions and disputes emerge here and there around the topic of «What art market is all about?» or more specifically «Do we have art market?». The majority of disputing participants tend to think that there is no market in our region. When, for example, during one of the recent meetings of artistic intelligentsia in Bishkek I hesitatingly suggested that there probably existed art market in Almaty, I was immediately reprimanded: «There is no market there either».
These litanies that «we have no market» remind me of public concerns during the perestroika period that «we have no sex». I will abstain from developing any further analogies between these two statements. I will just conclude: it had turned out that the issue then was more about what we understood as sex? By extension, the appropriate question for current case is: what do we understand as market?
The most common thing perhaps would be the possibility to transform art works into commodity and to include them into the system of commodity-money relations within our current «exotic economy» and economically viable part of the society with all the ensuing consequences. Numerous books and articles on the issue of «how to sell art» have already been published in our country but the situation has not improved (of course, compared to western experience)(4). It is well-known that art market in the USA and Europe, in other countries with developed economies, is a complex ramified system that reflects the country’s historical experience, cultural tastes and traditions, value orientations of certain social groups, demand and supply infrastructure, market mechanisms, tough competition and many others. It is not the artist who plays a key role in successful functioning of the market in the West (musician, actor and etc) but a curator (manager). Of course, in the selection process, professionalism of an artist is taken into account but does not always determine the outcome. Having observed for many years the process of selection of artists (mostly musicians) from our region by western managers for participation in festivals and concerts, I witnessed the cases of subjectivism and (using the forgotten expression of the Soviet times) «parochialism». This implies that the selection based on the principles of market is not a guarantee of artistic value of selected works.
One of the signs and peculiarities of our «transition period» is the search of a compromise between creative activity and market, at least for some artists. Market and creative activity are perceived as incompatible and even mutually exclusive phenomena, as antagonisms. In Uzbekistan, as in the neighboring Central Asian states, there are a lot of people that combine work for market (meeting the demand for «oriental kitsch», «oriental avant-garde», etc. and earning one’s living) with creative activity «for the soul», for their freedom of self-expression. In this process, the artist works out a certain compromise, which consists of not only psychological but also artistic «concessions».
Central Asian artist has to find mostly independently the ways to market both inside the country and beyond its borders, and for that there are different spaces and possibilities. I remember the title of a smart article in a Russian magazine of the late 1990s under the strange, for Central-Asian perception, name «From Bazaar to Market» (implying a movement from the chaos of original elemental business undertakings to organized market). In our country, in Uzbekistan, on the contrary, the expression «bozor systemacy» has sustainable terminological nature and defines market as a new economic phenomenon. And this market still preserves some of its «national features».
A unique space for local (domestic) art market, for example, in Tashkent became the space around the Sailgoh Street (formerly named after Karl Marx, this street is now informally called «Broadway»). Similar pedestrian streets in Almaty, Bishkek and other cities of Central Asian cannot be compared to what you see in Tashkent. Considerable differences are due to the scope, organization and participation of artistic labor force. It is possible that the reason is the nearly complete absence of private artistic galleries in Tashkent. The phenomenon of «Tashkent Broadway» undoubtedly deserves special attention and may become an object of art-sociological study in future. Let me elaborate briefly.
Functionally, Tashkent Broadway is a market close to oriental bazaar. At the same time, it could be viewed as a kind of «folk gallery» of the «transition period», freely accessible for the inhabitants of Tashkent and the guests of the capital. This is the area of about 200-250 meters of pedestrian space, line up with paintings on both sides and arranged in 4-5 rows. There could be simultaneously displayed several hundred paintings (from 300 to 500). Such a dramatic increase took place in the last 5-6 years.
The themes of the work exhibited are notable as well. External observations show that during the last 5-7 years, there have been a qualitative change in the subject-matter and a differentiation in content and meaning. Along with spontaneous and chaotic selection of paintings, there is an observable and deliberate orientation for working with specific «target groups». The evidence is high-quality (professional) copies of paintings of Vereshchagin and Central-Asian avant-garde (Usto Mumin, Volkov, Ufimtsev, etc.) that recently emerged. It is obvious that this series of paintings target regular European tourists educated in the traditions of orientalism. (By the way, this may be an indicator of high level of development of cultural tourism in the country). An enormous and high-quality selection of such type of paintings (+ pseudo-oriental contemporary themes, specifically imitations of a well-known master from Tashkent Akmal Nuru) give the impression that this is organized as a production line, and serious specialists are involved in this process; this may even be a team-based work. This could easily be considered market in the conditions of local economy?
Economy decides everything
Only fifteen years ago, the movement of cultural flows, the vectors of cultural development in Central Asia almost exclusively depended on the political factor, and belonging to this or that political system. Recently, it is the factor of economic interests that appeared prominently to determine cultural production. In many respects it supersedes the political aspect. Gradually and imperceptibly, certain «new thinking» emerged. Political discords and all other differences are ignored when there is a possibility for economic gain. This is how almost all contemporary politicians and heads of states act.
The thinking of cultural producers has changed accordingly. It symbolizes the fact that culture has conceded its autonomous and independent position within society and in relation to the state. Culture has been brought down by the efforts of its carriers to the level of primitive economic relations.
The «behavior» of the national and international business elites is exemplary in the context of cultural problems. In our conditions, their generally known features of pragmatism, calculation and competition, and enrichment at any price take their original (or initial) form. In this context, culture often becomes a desired instrument for achieving economic goals or creating favorable public image of the capital holder.
Contemporary researchers of Turkmen music quote the words of the great Turkmen poet of the XVIIIth century – Magtymkul:
When well-being is to set upon the people,
Then a singer-narrator (ozan) comes first.
Paraphrased, this verse may suggest that if a transnational (or any other national) company comes to the country, one may expect investments into culture. And thank Allah! This is wonderful; there seems to be nothing bad about it. We know of many positive facts of investments and culture support on the part of big investors. Besides, there is still hope for high business culture in the USA, Europe and other advanced countries, especially for their so-called “ethical” component, which we often contrast to our total Asian corruption. It would be good if they would teach our businessmen fair business practices from the very beginning.
However, it looks like we shall have to abandon this «Central Asian dream». One of the «stages» on the way to getting rid of this harmful intelligentsia-type illusion is the appearance of new documented evidence of the activity of western businessmen in Central Asia. Specifically, as it pertains to national cultures. Among them is a recently shot documentary investigation “Shadow of the Holy Book” by the Finnish journalist Arto Halonen and his American colleague residing in Finland - Kevin Frazier. It show that there are no moral or ethic principles when it comes to taking over markets, getting hold of natural resources or obtaining contracts and commissions in one or another country of Central Asia. The translations of Turkmenbashi book «Rukhnama» into over forty foreign languages have been financed by well-known international companies (from Germany, France, Turkey, the USA and other countries) in exchange for access to development of mineral resources in Turkmenistan, construction and other activities. «Business is business and moral is moral», one of the personages of the film explained who had been involved in this kind of business and whom the authors managed to get talking. In other words, money does not have a smell. There was only one case of repentance voiced out in this film by a Finnish businessman.
We and Europe
This and other similar facts make us look differently at the positioning of our culture in contemporary world, reassess our recent past and also understand the nature and dynamics of our relations with European culture and civilization. Of course, there is no debate about limiting contact with Euro-American culture. Even if wished so, it would have been impossible to do so in the currently globalized and technogeneous world. We can only discuss how to find a balance between the conservation of our own traditions and the continuous interaction with the global (first and foremest Western) cultural world. How do we protect our own while mastering something the new? How do we develop the national without plunging into self-isolation? How do we avoid confrontation between cultural worlds and harm the interaction between our cultures while identifying and criticizing negative aspects introduced by the western globalization?
We may speak about the possibility of conceptual unification of supra-national and state-political structures with the aim to develop a new concept of convergence, this time cultural convergence. In other words, it would involve a deliberate integration of positive accumulations of the Soviet socialist system and of western cultural and social values. It seems that the idea of convergence that has been discussed at length during the Soviet period but is completely forgotten now. And, in the meanwhile, today, as never before, we have the possibility and conditions for creating one indivisible cultural world. But something is wrong.
I will try to explain what is “wrong” on the western part. Altogether, the western social thought continues active promotion and formation of the «socialism-related victim complex» with regard to post-Soviet Central Asia. (Of course, it is common knowledge that a large, if not decisive, contribution has been made by the representatives of «cultural and scientific community» of our own countries). Quite often, it becomes apparent that western researchers and cultural producers still remain in the condition of the Cold War. However, for us, this war seemingly was finished with the disintegration of the USSR. They continue to perceive the Soviet system as historically unjust (illegitimate) and decidedly totalitarian. Whatever the subject is, whatever period is under consideration, it is approached from the initial (already prescribed) negative point of view.
Judging from my own experience and observations, almost every cultural project grant related to our region that our citizens apply to international organizations begins with the preamble (definition of problem) of the pejorative criticism of their own recent historical past. This has become a sort of guarantee for obtaining grants; and is accepted as a norm and encouraged by western experts and fund advisers.
A young visiting researcher from the West, educated within the Cold War Sovietology principles, arrives with already pre-conceived methodological framework, even before actual acquaintance with the region. Our young researches, hastily refashioned and trained in western centers, very often concurrently poisoned by fanatical anti-sovietism (mixed with Russophobia), have similar methodological frameworks. Very often such western scientist fails to take into account the enormous previous existing scientific tradition, developed both during Russian and Soviet periods. This is especially true with regard to the Soviet period, which was simply discarded as ideologized and propaganda-based. Such a researcher brings the vision typical for the period of the technogeneous civilization in the West, which does not coincide temporally and otherwise with our Eurasian cultural paradigm. In the same way they evaluate our science, which does not coincide with the paradigm of Euro-American researchers. Such examples are numerous(5), though, of course, there are instances of respectful attitude to preceding scientific tradition as grant-based research is implemented.
In addition, Russian language is considered by western researchers and culture specialists, experts, etc. only as an indicator of belonging to the former USSR (with respective organizational conclusions), while for us it is not only the possession of a huge common cultural heritage, but one of the key factors of our regional cultural unity, regional cultural identity, and our common future. Let alone the fact that knowledge of the Russian language is a way to survive for many thousands of people from our region that are forced to migrate to the regions of Russia to earn their living. At the same time, new generations grow up without knowing Russian and consequently there arise serious problems in the cultural situation in the region.
Thus, the image of an enemy is still being formed (defeated but not yet destroyed), the victim complex (among entire generations) generated, and at the same time, the image of progressive and democratic western system playing the role of the savior, culture-trigger, is produced. It would have been so wonderful if it had been as simple as that. But it is known that the western system itself is subject to painful crises. Moreover, more importantly, we are not to forget that these imposed «factors» unwittingly provoke estrangement from the global cultural process and contributes to new mobilization inside our region. We do not have a wide choice of historical support in order to unite within the region. The Soviet past, the Soviet cultural heritage is the most sustainable common property that is able to unite disintegrated cultural forces. However unproductiveness of such bases is clear and obvious in the conditions of changes that have taken place and the present reality. And here we again come back to the idea of cultural convergence, to the development of new theory of interaction of cultural worlds. The first step in this way should be the recognition of value of the Soviet cultural heritage as a special cultural-historical phenomenon and an important component of new developments.
One of the most prominent consequences of globalization is the ongoing disintegration of cultural community in our national states. New elite is being formed (very thin societal layer) and a huge number of people are deprived of high cultural achievements and forced to be satisfied with the «leftovers» of the «second hand» culture. A huge cultural abyss is appearing between us. New cultural elite – new culture conductors –are also those that have got education in American and European universities and have a good command of the English language. The knowledge of English opens up access to further education in the West and carrier promotion. While encouraging English and at the same time reducing the sphere of application of Russian and the scope of its study, conductors or implementers of such (unbalanced) course create new cultural situation in the region. In conditions of such civilizational shift experienced by Central Asian cultures and generally in the post-Soviet space, are we ready to oppose the new models of cultural development with our own regional concept of cultural development within the framework of natural cultural competition?
We and the Muslim East
One of the mechanisms and bases of cultural resistance whether we want it or not, is objectively Islamic religion. Islam is a big unspent cultural resource and a factor of development of cultural life and art. This process is gradually gathering strength. It has been a while now that next to recreation centers (houses of culture) of the Soviet times, modern compact mosques are built (both by communities themselves and with the help of sponsors from Turkey, Arabic and other countries of the Muslim East). This is what is happening in the rural areas of Kyrgyzstan, for example, as well as in other neighboring countries. But if in Kyrgyzstan mosques as well as the houses of culture still lack many visitors, in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan the process has already yielded its results. Gradually and steadily, not only social bases for contemporary art are washed out but for any ground for secular art more generally is disappearing. First and foremost, this is true in the rural area and the regions. Of course, special role belongs to political upheavals of the last decade, including almost complete elimination of the non-governmental organizations sector and closure of the majority of international funds (in the first place in Uzbekistan). I do not want to exaggerate but at times it seems that all these installations and happenings is now the domain of capitals and the same small and rather limited circle of cultural community (half of which often consists of diplomats and representatives of few international organizations).
Inevitability of the revival of Islamic factor in the culture forces us to have a closer look at it. What does it entail, what are the «positive» and «negative» aspects of its strengthening?
Islamic factor within the culture of Central Asia may be expressed in four important forms:
1. Creative artistic principle within Islamic religious practice
2. Islamic art per se, founded on basic elements of the religion;
3. Islamic ideas and images in secular forms of artistic expression (theatre, performance, music, fine arts, cinema and etc.);
4. Artistic expression in the forms of folk Islam and Sufism.
We could discuss each of these directions at length. Of special interest is Islamic art that has been going through dramatic revival in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. It is through this channel (and also through secular art with Islamic content) that in future one of the most fruitful ways to connect to the cultures of other Islamic countries: India, Iran, Afghanistan and Arabic countries may be implemented as well as to restore and revive Islamic cultural unity, the scope of which may exceed the limits of the post-Soviet Central Asia. Perhaps this factor will become the most important one for the enhancement of our cultural interactions with the Western civilization as well.
1. I use the word «artist» widely here, designating different manifestations of professional types of art – specifically in fine arts, music, theatre and etc.
2. An interview with a well-known collector of avant-garde art I.Savitsky in one of the old documentary films in Karakalpak museum, for example, is interesting to mention. In this interview, Savitsky narrates about the fierce competition he had had to face in order to select the works of avant-garde artists for his museum before others could get to it. This documentary chronicle goes against the common perception of Savitsky as a loner who would collect avant-garde trash that nobody wants in a remote desert.
3. recollect that 10-15 years ago my attempts to pay traditional musicians in Central Asia (specifically in Uzbekistan) for playing music for non-commercial purposes would most often be perceived as an insult. In the course of the last several years the situation has changed dramatically in line with the principles of «market economy».
4. Major publications related to this topic (including translations from European languages) appear first in Russia, but they are more or less known to specialists, and in the first place, to art critics in our countries.
5. For example, once I pointed out to a French ethnomusicologist to the fact that in his book much is already well known to us through publications of the Soviet researchers. He answered that «he did not know Russian» but with an obvious emphasis, that he did not want to know this language of «colonizers».
Alexander Djumaev, Uzbekistan
©SCCA 2001-2002 |