Siurrealistinė galios erozija Sauliaus Tomo Kondroto romanuose

LTSocrealizmo ir siurrealizmo formos yra genetiškai susijusios su marksistine ideologija. Tačiau būdamos giminingos dėl instrumentinio santykio su pasauliu, vėlyvojo sovietmečio mene jos paradoksaliai ėmė reikšti prieštaringas menininkų laikysenas. Iki tol dominavęs socialistinis realizmas patyrė prieš jį maištaujančios siurrealistinės formos „kanibalizmą“. Rašytojas Saulius Tomas Kondrotas romanuose pasitelkė siurrealizmui būdingą raišką ir ėmė dekonstruoti galios instanciją, jos elitinį cinizmą. Gilindamasis į žmogaus nuopuolio, atgailos, pasaulio grėsmės, teisiančio žmogaus žvėriškumo gaivalą, eroso ir beprotybės sąsajas, Kondrotas priartėjo prie teminio siurrealistų akiračio. Jo prozoje išsiskleidė literatūrinis maištas prieš socialistinės „realybės“ utopiškumą. Straipsnyje išryškinsime siurrealistų deklaruotas ir Kondroto perimtas raiškos idėjas, aiškinsimės autoriui rūpimų verčių ambivalencijos priežastis ir pasitelkiamų mitų modifikavimą. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Siurrealizmas; Socrealizmas; Vertė; Aistra; Ambivalencija; Surrealism; Socialist Realism; Myth; Value; Passion.

ENThe forms of Socialist Realism and Surrealism are genetically connected to Marxist ideology, and are related in their instrumental relationship to the world. Paradoxically, in the art of the late Soviet era, they also came to signify opposing stances amongst artists. Having dominated until then, Socialist Realism experienced the “cannibalism” of the Surrealism revolting against it. In his novels, the writer Saulius Tomas Kondrotas drew on surrealistic forms of expression to deconstruct the nature of power. He delved into the connections between the fall of man, repentance, the dangerousness of the world, the inhumanity of the accused man, between eros and insanity, and arrived at the surrealists’ thematic perspective. The author of the article reviews the features of Kondrotas’s prose within the context of the decline of Socialist Realism. In her analysis she draws on the more convenient, surrealist model of creative work, rather than the dominating, but rather abstract, postmodern conception. Kondrotas’s prose contains explicit parallels with the main ideas and declarations of the surrealists: art’s engagement with society’s most pressing concerns, the liberation of the imagination and its stimulation by desire and revolt, the poeticization of everyday life, surprising juxtapositions, the immediacy of dreams and their blending into conscious reality, the synthesis of reason and madness, mythologizing, the ambivalence of values, the intrusion of the afterlife through meaningful coincidences (objective accidents), exaggerated passions, the convulsions of beauty, and others. Against the backdrop of the ideas of Western Surrealism, the author observes how Kondrotas’s novels reinvent various myths of power around the core ideas of the axis person-community-God and the defeat of a power established by one selfish person.Kondrotas’s dream-like vision of evil, which cracks the secrets of human nature and man-made mechanisms of control, confronts the optimistic fantasies of Soviet literature. The writer delved into the complex manipulations inherent in human relations – the passion to impose moral norms upon and control another. He was especially fascinated by the cynicism of power and denials of elitism. In these novels the cynicism of power is confronted by the revolts of passion and madness. Kondrotas’s prose, which is allegorically directed at the absurdities of Soviet reality and the fundamental dehumanization at the system’s core, also encompassed a larger, and not only historical, perspective. Kondrotas surpassed the despotic limits of Soviet criticism and created universal parables which explored the origins and meaning of evil. [From the publication]