Artistic creativity in the cultural diplomacy: opportunities and boundaries

Chuprova Irina Aleksandrovna ORCID: 0000-0002-6667-1136 PhD in Philosophy Senior Lecturer; A.F. Shishkin Department of Philosophy; Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation 119454, Russia, Moscow, Vernadsky , 76 ir.a.chuprova@my.mgimo.ru Other publications by this author

Glagolev Vladimir Sergeevich ORCID: 0000-0003-1480-5152 Doctor of Philosophy Professor, Department of Cultural Studies and Religious Studies, M. V. Lomonosov Northern (Arctic) Federal University 163002, Russia, Arkhangelsk, nab. Severnaya Dvina, 17 kfmgimo@gmail.com

The variety of processes that determine the conditions for the development of international relations becomes the subject of research interest of representatives of various fields of knowledge. The issues and problems of international contacts acquire a specific "sound" when they are understood through the prism of cultural philosophy, where special attention is paid to the "values and meanings" of cultural dynamics in the context of historically specific conditions of "place and time" ^{[1, 2, 3, 4]}. One of the topical research issues in this case is the question of the possibilities and boundaries of intercultural interaction in the field of art in conditions of economic, political and social turbulence ^{[5, 6]}.

It is no secret that culture, which concentrates its spiritual quest in art, is a delicate area. In the extreme, "turbulence" of various kinds can lead (and, unfortunately, often lead) to attempts of various kinds of "cancellations" ^{[7, 8]}. At the same time, cultural contacts often demonstrate the amazing resilience of artistic culture in relation to toxic attempts to politicize its non-political content. It should be noted that even in relatively "calm" periods of political "weather", individual creative personalities and collectives find it possible (or even consider it necessary) to express their political position with artistic statements and/or personal actions directly related to their professional activities. It is clear that in turbulent periods such statements and actions become even more frequent, and "pure art" appears to be a marginal theory, from which both representatives of the creative workshop, who sincerely share the values of the "initial" political charge of any creativity, and those who speak from the standpoint of inevitability only "the secondary" influence of the political and ideological framework on artistic culture as a whole. Additional accents are also brought by the very fact of presence in an international context: here there is a discussion between those who share a commitment to the idea of an inevitably state "face" of art (due to affiliation with the country), and those who consciously consider their activities to be quite far from both official and unofficial (but quite readable) affiliated representative offices.

However, it would not be a big exaggeration to say that external "political pressure" is an inevitable phenomenon when entering exhibition and concert venues, especially foreign ones, especially massive and especially commercially successful ones. Here, "partisanship", highlighted by V. I. Lenin in a famous 1905 article, only clarifies the well-known thesis: "one cannot live in society and be free from society" ^[9]. But the opposite is also true: not every artistic statement must be internally built according to the canons of the political. Such an obligation may or may not be accepted by the artist himself, it cannot be "imposed" from the outside (although, for example, it is possible to prohibit the dissemination of the results of artistic activity that does not coincide with the officially accepted ideology). Moreover, the connection with the social and cultural context in this case turns out to be more complicated than the connection with the political context. The artist creates for eternity, expanding the scope of the present (which in the end can be interesting and useful, including for politics), opening (and possibly constructing) the prospect of the future. That is why state control over this area increases during turbulent periods: thus, the state mechanism seeks to insure itself against possible risks of "shaky" structures, from its point of view, capable of influencing the image of a desirable future. Nevertheless, ensuring civic loyalty — especially when it comes to the sphere of international contacts — imposes additional requirements on the artist that go beyond purely professional compliance: you cannot represent your country if it is not an absolute value for the representative.

In our opinion, it is in the course of the development of international contacts in the field of art that the paradox of a combination of political and non—political reveals itself, which can be considered as a range of meaningful, organizational and other actions related to the core of artistic creativity on the one hand and to the communicative environment of its implementation on the other.

The proven way of operation of this paradox in practice is precisely cultural diplomacy ^{[10, 11, 12]}. And although the latter considers art in an instrumental way, its potential for preserving and promoting cultural heritage can be understood in the broad context of establishing cultural ties, and not only in the utilitarian prism of solving purely instrumental tasks. Bearing significant communicative potential, art (as one of the universal languages of communication) can contribute to the identification of conditionally non-ideological points of contact in the field of international contacts, the promotion of participants in international relations along the path of mutual understanding and the establishment of stable ties capable of withstanding the inevitable periods of turbulence from time to time. At the same time, of course, it seems necessary to maintain a clear understanding: the possibilities of cultural diplomacy, "soft power" (and art as one of its manifestations) in building interstate contacts act precisely as opportunities, as conditions for the emergence of a "space for communication", constructive dialogue; expect to see art and other tools "soft power" means of resolving all the difficulties that arise in difficult periods of the development of international relations, it seems superfluous ^[14].

It is interesting to note: work with meaning as one of the facets is manifested, on the one hand, in the creative work of musicians, artists, actors and other representatives of the art world, and, on the other hand, the same work with meaning is present in the comprehension of what is heard, seen, read by a thinking listener, viewer, reader; similar "two-sided" efforts unfold a variety of forms of meaning-setting. The ability to reflect, question, wonder, or maybe not understand (but due to misunderstanding, strive to understand) allows a person (in this case, both as a performer / author, and as a listener / viewer / reader, and as a person in general) to find the depth, content of their own existence; existence associated with the perspective of seeing their own boundaries (the complete disappearance of which, by virtue of human finiteness, is by definition impossible), and at the same time the chance to expand these boundaries, overcome. In this case, the very effort to see and recognize in another (in another person, another culture, another worldview system, etc.) what is worthy, valuable, and beautiful is significant. Such a need for self-determination, in turn, can become one of the ways to freedom (from one's own "centrisms", prejudices, conscious unwillingness to listen, think, generally prohibitions in principle to notice otherwise, etc.) both in interpersonal communication and on the scale of international communication ^{[15, 16]}.

Adding to the above, it should be noted that the originality of the "soft power" of cultural diplomacy, the variety of angles of its manifestation in the field of intercultural contacts are very seriously studied in a variety of scientific studies (from works in the field of political science and theory of international relations to developments in ethnopsychology, ethnology, etc.) ^{[17, 18, 19]}. At the same time, it is especially important to take into account that diplomacy as such has the direct purpose of promoting national interests in a form beneficial to the parties involved in the negotiation processes.

National art, in this case, being one of the elements of "soft power", is seen as one of the few means capable of accommodating the essence of many aspects of the existence of culture, the existence of its meanings, values, paradoxes, unfolding the multidimensionality of manifestations of meaning, understanding in their completeness and integrity, without trying to artificially "set" the only correct options. With such a flexible ability to "voice" various semantic lines, genuine art inspires the search for an original view of meaning and opens the way to the search for eternal values — which, unlike politics and morality, art is still looking for, often far from being sure what it has found or is finding. Simple contemplation and experience of what they have seen and heard open the way for the parties of intercultural interaction to each other, which lies apart from the pragmatic goals of further cooperation in the field of economics, politics, etc. Thus, certain initiatives in the space of intercultural cooperation focused on efficiency and success may, at the same time, not exclude the possibility of higher goal-setting, namely, the need to maintain openness to dialogue even under very difficult concomitant circumstances of "big politics", mutual respect of participants in negotiation processes at the interstate level, assuming the consistency of the general and the special (the art of diplomacy as the "art of the possible" is set up precisely to search for this consistency).

At the same time, the special (and perhaps unique, singular) is by no means absorbed, not leveled by the common: the value of both the individual and the common in their interaction is revealed precisely by this interaction, which sets off the variety of manifestations of each side. Such mutual "cognition" through dialogue with the other becomes self-knowledge, implying the possibility of choice, but at the same time bearing the need for responsibility. "To get any truth about myself, I have to go through another. The other is necessary for my existence, as well as for my self-knowledge. Under these conditions, the discovery of my inner world opens up to me at the same time another, as the freedom standing in front of me, which thinks and desires “for” or “against" me. Thus, a whole world opens up, which we call intersubjectivity. In this world, a person decides what he is and what others are" ^{[20, p. 336]}. The presence of such different ways of communicating with the diversity of the image of the world and, at the same time, the image of one's country ^{[21, 22]} is very important to take into account during periods of turbulence, since the desire to see complex multi-valued processes from only one side (especially adhering only to current, momentary stability or, even worse, instability) carries a risk exclude the possibility of cooperation as such.  

Thus, art can be considered as one of the ways to understand the semantic architectonics of reality (both the subjective inner world of the bearer of a certain cultural matrix and the objectified external world, which is a metissage of projections of the subjective worlds of its bearers). Thus, the art world remains open to meeting a variety of approaches that do not exclude other forms of truth-seeking (science, religion, etc.) and other subjectivity in the form of other socio-cultural models.

The peculiar "fusion" of modern art as a highly professional activity with the experience of an unexpected result of this activity makes it possible to expand the range of its impact on recipients not only in space, but also in time, which are experienced in a special way by modern culture ^[23]. Such highly artistic "radiation", among other things, indicates the complexity and depth of the tasks facing the artist: it is not enough to "just" be a professional here, as it is not enough for the organizer of the event to "simply" calculate, mark up and get the desired result of influencing the target audience. Let's repeat: the artist works here and now, but he also works for eternity. Therefore, an even more important and valuable result may turn out to be one that neither the artist himself nor the organizer of the event foresaw. At the same time, it is the organizer who bears his measure of responsibility for what the future fate of the artistic "contribution" made with his support will be — whether this contribution will be aimed at solving previously set political tasks or will be "in reserve" for purely diplomatic tasks. The third, disastrous option is the loss of initiative in the implementation of a scenario involving the promotion of a favorable image of one's country on the proposed artistic material both now and in the future.

From this point of view, cultural diplomacy has serious capital, the value of which may eventually open up new opportunities. In art, context is always important, interpretation is important, the ability to perceive, comprehend, and find a "highlight". In addition, the unique individuality of the artist not only reveals the national wealth of culture in the form of special experiences and meanings, but also develops a unique originality of questions to the Other exactly as the Other. Perhaps such questions can tell a lot more about you and this Other Person than the empirical reality of today's counter-agents of intercultural interaction in the field of culture and art.

As a result, international processes in the field of culture, and cultural diplomacy in particular, it makes sense to understand as a platform that gives place to the "growth" of the original cultural capital of each of the participants in the interaction. Theoretical approaches to understanding the importance of this increase in further constructive communication between partner countries make it possible to solve problems that arise in practice in a more balanced way and solve problems that are inevitable in any intensive communication.

So, as a result of the undertaken research, the main types of attitude of a creative personality to the inclusion of her professional activity in the reflexive and latent international political agenda have been clarified. It is shown that the "political/non-political" dichotomy operates by contrasting the external framework and internal attitudes that determine the direction of artistic creativity. If the external framework is set by the very participation in the work of international venues, then the internal criteria of creativity have an independent meaning and may or may not coincide with the external ones. Unlike the "political/non-political" dichotomy, the "official/ unofficial" dichotomy is based on the principle of accepting one or another affiliation and determining the necessary measure of loyalty to the requirements established by the affiliated party. The solution of the tasks of cultural diplomacy involves a reflexive participation in the promotion of the cultural brand of the country by those creative forces who are ready to reveal their potential within any of the positions of these dichotomies in any combination. Thus, strategies of cultural diplomacy presuppose the ability to act without missing the horizons of further prospects (cooperation, interaction, etc.), to find opportunities to overcome factors limiting conditions for building a productive dialogue even while maintaining these "negative contexts" (due to their objective presence in both internal and external political realities), which allows you to work on the principle of conversion of "cancellations". The possibilities and boundaries of interaction between representatives of creative professions and the political context of their activities are thus determined, first of all, by their professional qualities, as well as by a value choice involving conscious participation in promoting the image of their country as a promising partner of constructive interaction; whereas the measure of responsibility of "accompanying" these processes on the part of actors in cultural diplomacy involves participation in the support and promotion of representatives of the creative community, who seek with their art, first of all, those "eternal values and meanings" — or those whose conscious choice corresponds to the principle of respect for political decisions representing (for the most part) only political interests.