Sculptor Gleb Panteleyev: “I wish to watch Russian films, but I don’t wish to be baited through them”

From Russia’s point of view, implementation of soft power is a wise strategy. It is obvious that in the course of time particular experience has been gained, lessons learned, therefore now action methods are changed. But this strategy is threatening because its principal tasks are unclear. Everything is difficult to perceive. All activities are seemingly carried out through cultural projects, indistinct methods of influence are implemented.

I wouldn’t say that now we should not go to see road show of the “Sovremennink” theatre. The offered products are often of quite high quality. Thereby, while listening to the music or watching theatre performance, one should bear in mind that it may conceal a quiet request to do something particular after that. Of course, Russian films, for example, have not final titres containing directions of whom to support in local election. However, one should have a pause in good time in order to identify the secret message and think of what is concealed by it. It is necessary to keep the balance, enjoying the cultural products without being baited simultaneously ideologically.

Such situation however is unavoidable. For example, when Gagarin was on a space travel, his image was used for popularizing the communism ideas in the world. He was presented as the Soviet human being – representative of the most progressive state system. But I wouldn’t identify Gagaring with communism. In my opinion, he is a romantic hero. Recently I was creating his portrait. And I didn’t connect him with the era of communist rule. But such image may be used as a weapon.

I think that all large and viable cultures are aggressive. Only their messages and motives differ. But in the aggregate, increasing of one’s own influence is characteristic for all the major cultures.

At the moment, we are somewhere between Russian neo-imperial and Western consumers’ society strengthening influence.

The soil is quite favourable for growth of influence here because we ourselves cannot offer our products for people to be identified with. Thereby Russia has a free space for its offer. While consuming it, everybody makes his/her own conclusions. Some of us may consider it as a first rate art. But the others may conclude that we are incapable of anything, but Russians can do good things, they are stronger, so they can serve as an example. It is important what one expects to see behind the offered products. Possible influence cannot be explained. For instance, during the relatively recent Soviet period in 1980s, American films were preceded by a lecture on how to perceive correctly the content of the film. I watched films and made quite the opposite conclusions. So this mechanism of explanation doesn’t work.

For balancing the situation, it would be useful to achieve the quality of local cultural products not to be lower than that offered by the other countries. In this regard I am concerned about the occasional governmental statements on the necessity to cut sponsorship for the national cinema under the pretext that nothing valuable is created. But in case no funds are granted, after ten years revival of the genre would be impossible. In order to have any positive result, money must be invested right now. That applies to the whole culture policy.

Speaking about Russia’s television offer to Latvian audience, basically it is a rather low quality product in the form of mainly humour shows and incompetent pop singers’ presentations. Of course sometimes we have separate cultural pearls. But they are quite rare. One may be horrified of how primitive it is, but the Latvian Culture Ministry lacks its system for selection and organizing of the offered products.

Simultaneously, it is obvious that the representatives of Russian culture receiving support from the state of Latvia, are pushed aside by the local Russian audience. They are automatically ignored by the Russian language media in Latvia. There appears a kind of principle – if you go together with Latvians, you have nothing to do with us. And that is a very splitting mechanism. Local Russian media are not interested in the persons of Russian nationality lacking problems in their relations with Latvians. My person can serve as an example here. I insist that I have never had any problems with Latvians regarding my nationality or any other similar difficulties. And that is why I am non-exist for the Russian press.

Generally speaking, culture is obviously connected with politics. And it is practically unavoidable. I can mention some examples. At the time when dispute was ongoing around the Russian schools in Latvia, I was offered to create a memorial board to the Russian writer Valentin Pikul. He is the Russian author whose works have undergone most publications. I would have gladly done that job because I appreciate this literature, disregarding the fact that I have a different opinion on separate political and historical issues. However, it turned out that the work had been offered by OKROL (United Congress of Russian Communities in Latvia). Being aware of the real message of the offer, I refused because I disagreed with the goals of that organization. Next the project was interrupted completely, although I had proposed some other artists, and a considerable sponsorship was expected. It only indicates that actually it was an obviously political project, and the writer Pikul had nothing to do with it. At that moment I was necessary for OKROL as a figure for achieving some political objectives. And that is a characteristic situation when art and culture remain in the background, while the “sauce” is stressed.

Culture cannot be fully isolated from politics. It follows that I, too, use my art for political purposes, but only for those acceptable for me. For example, the situation while working on the Kalpaks monument was the following. There appeared accusations that my activities were in line with promotion of the political career of Girts Valdis Kristovskis and support for his party. But the process of the monument creating was not connected by any means with mentioning of some party belonging. The monument was sponsored by the people, and its message is extra-partisan. The main point is, whom this work serves.

I have had presentations also in Saint-Petersburg. And they were supported by Foreign Ministry. Thereby they had some political tonality. Being under the influence of local authorities, people in Russia asked me if I was discriminated by Latvian officials. I wonder what kind of question it is. Latvia is my country, and I am discriminated by nobody. I don’t see any problems on this issue, therefore I am not going to make any excuses and explain anything. It is my work which is the demonstration of my thoughts, my ideals, my goals and my personality as such.