Pussy Riot’s world fame began when they performed their biggest, and most controversial, piece of protest art in Russian Orthodox Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow on February 21, 2012, the day before Putin’s reelection. The feminist protest punk group performed their song “Mother of God, Chase Putin Away” as they wore brightly colored baklavas over their faces while dancing and kicking around the altar, the holiest place in the cathedral reserved for priests. Their performance lasted less than a minute before being interrupted by cathedral guards but was recorded by others in the church and made into a music video that became a viral sensation around the world.
This is the original video filmed... the link below is for the video with music and English subtitles
(I recommend the linked one)
The song urges the Mother of God to become a feminist and claims that the church Patriarch Kirill venerates President Putin instead of God. Pussy Riot’s lyrics are set to an interesting combination of a traditional orthodox hymn to the Mother of God and classic punk style music. The performance caused a lot of criticism from the Russian state and the Russian Orthodox Church and was seen as highly disrespectful and offensive against the church, while in actuality it was a (sort of) Christian call to action against the corruption within the church and state. One member who was arrested because of the performance, Nadya Tolokonnikova, explained that the members were “upset by the political initiative of the patriarch” and “like many of our fellow citizens, wrestle against the treachery, deceit, bribery, hypocrisy, greed, and lawlessness particular to the current authorities and rulers.” The trial following the performance ended up being just as, if not more, controversial as the performance itself. It was an unfair trial with articulate explanations and criticisms from the three members being tried and the eventual sentences of two years prison under the charge of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.” There was much criticism throughout the world about the arrest of the women, but two out of the three served their full time in prison for less than a minute of actions of protest.
The taboo nature of blasphemy and the provocativeness of their performances proved useful in their creative endeavors to hook an audience and make a lasting statement, whether or not people agree with or like it. It is how the performance was executed, portrayed, and received that was important, not necessarily the art of the song itself. The song by itself may not be radical or especially creative, but it is the meaning behind it and the way that it was presented to the public that made it creative and impactful. The group does their uncomfortable performances in public venues so it is accessible for everyone, and then uses modern communication and social media to spread the message even further than their range of influence, and to protect it from immediate political censorship or oppression.
As Amabile and Pillemer write on in their article “Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity,” the largest influence of the environment on creativity is motivation. Pussy Riot’s motivation towards action is spurred by the current political environment in Russia that they find deeply problematic. Research referenced in the article also spoke about a “harmonious passion,” how one internalizes their art and creativity to make it part of their identity, making it joyful and pleasurable to do. Harmonious passion is arguably the strongest motivation towards creativity because people view their art as part of themselves. My interpretation of the members of Pussy Riot is that their art and radical spirit is a part of themselves, but it does not define or identify them. Russian philosopher Slavoj Zizek comments on the identity of Pussy Riot well by saying:
“They wear balaclavas - masks of de-individualization, of liberating anonymity. The message of their balaclavas is that it doesn’t matter which of them are arrested — they’re not individuals, they’re an Idea. And this is why they are such a threat: it’s easy to imprison individuals, but try to imprison an Idea!”
In an interview, Nadya Tolokonnikova talks about what inspires her and others in Pussy Riot to create. She says she is always thinking about how to involve an audience through their feelings and the experience they are having with it. Pussy Riot “uses immersive theater as [their] attempt to make people sympathetic to the cause”. Though a lot of their art is political, she doesn’t think that all art has to be, it all depends on what someone is inspired by, and she, and the others in Pussy Riot, just often tends to be inspired and motivated by the current political and social situation in the world, which is why their art is focused on critical commentary of corruption and many current injustices in the world.
Pussy Riot- Make America Great Again
TERESA M. AMABILE & JULIANNA PILLEMER “Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity “
Im so glad that someone wrote about this group, I think the use of music and performance as a form of protest is fascinating and endlessly important. Do you think that they would still be able to make powerful music without their current political conditions? Do you find their performance at the church to be offensive? obviously they were protesting a corrupt government but others might view that form of protest as misguided. Anyway, I love to see people rebelling against the government using creativity.
ReplyDeleteI am also super glad that you wrote on this topic! I saw an exhibition in London last fall that displayed their work along with other Russian radicals. My question is whether or not an act of creativity being provocative or jarring helps or hurts its acceptance to a wider community/experts/the field. On one hand, it helps the act get noticed faster but on the other it can turn some people away.
ReplyDeleteMuch like the other comments, I am so glad that you decided to write on this group. My favorite piece about this article was when you discussed the importance of keeping their anonymity as a means of emphasizing the Idea as a whole. In a way, it almost reminds me of the movie V for Vendetta, where the anti-hero V remains masked for the entirety of the movie because he is part of the rebellion.
ReplyDelete