Русское зазеркалье (двуязычная версия)

‘Iconic’ is the word that we people of today make an excessive use of, without even understanding what it means, or used to mean, originally. Let us put aside theology for the time being and concentrate on the process of creating an icon, a holy image of the Russian Orthodox Christianity. Creating an icon is, unlike writing a poem or manufacturing away a contemporary artistic installation, never seen as a personal act. Painters of icons do not normally sign their works, for it is not their creative personalities, but the Holy Presence manifested in the image that matters. For any separate Russian icon, it was, and still is, perfectly natural to be created by a number of masters, each of them being responsible for his own part of the work, such as the background or the faces of saints. It is in this sense that I see the duo of Vyacheslav Butusov and Ilya Kormiltsev, who both were contributing an equally important part to the mutual success of the band, as truly iconic; saying this, I do see ‘iconic’ and ‘collective’ as synonyms in the context of how a work of art comes to birth.

(Unfortunately, the collaboration of the two stopped in 1997 when Nautilus disbanded. Ilya Kormiltsev died in 2007 in London. Vyacheslav Butusov still remains artistically active.)

Almost all works of art created in Western Europe after the end of the Middle Ages, bear clear marks of their individual authors. It looks like the ‘iconic’ mode of creating songs, holy images, or literary texts with its natural restrictions for the creativity of individual contributors was rejected as inefficient. Why did it happen? What was gained through this ‘switching of the mode,’ and what was lost? Do you think that you, as a creative professional, would be able to ‘switch back to the medieval mode' of writing a song text or elaborating a melody, metaphorically speaking? Why would you be able to do it, or why wouldn’t you?

It is very hard to describe the artistic legacy of a musical band in general terms. Some songs by Nautilus Pompilius—‘The Khaki Sphere,’ ‘Titanic,’ or ‘Bound by One Chain’ among them—were clearly intended as criticism of the surrounding social reality. That having been said, these songs never tried to shift the responsibility for the ugly state of affairs to ‘some communist bastards.’

Here there are no scumbags in leather lounges.

Here the cream of society looks just like the dregs.

Perhaps they, like the dregs, are tired of being

Fastened by one chain, united by one purpose

—as Ilya Kormiltsev puts it. It is not the leading personalities of the Communist party, but the Evil within human nature itself which is to blame for the fact that the citizens of Soviet Russia are ‘fastened by one chain.’ I must perhaps add that both Kormiltsev and Butusov—unlike so many singer-songwriters of the late Soviet period—never played with the idea of one form of government being naturally superior to another. The lyrics of their ‘Goodbye, America’ make it very clear. As for ‘Bound by One Chain,’ four insightful lines from it are in my humble opinion equally applicable to any stagnating regime. Here they are.

Some people can believe in the absence of faith;

Some are very busy even when they have nothing to do.

There are miserable wretches praying, praying

That their misery be guaranteed.

Don’t you think that those lines, initially written as a description of Soviet reality, now accurately describe the brave new Western world of today?