Sergey Shnurov: “Who declares that he does something not for the sake of money, more persistently requires an advance payment”

Many of us, if not everyone, strive for success. But what is success today – in a world where publicity is available a couple of clicks? And how to understand: we have a genuine success or a carefully retired picture in which everyone “smiles and waves”? The musician, producer and TV presenter Sergei Shnurov talked about this with the participants of the conference “Amonf”. We publish it a bright and whipped monologue.

Success is not without reason in talked with “time” and “keep up”. Do not think that I will now begin to give you a lecture on household philology in the spirit of late Zadornov. No. In my case, this is just a poetic observation, which I want to emphasize the attachment to time, if you want, the momentary of this concept is success, its dynamism. What was successful yesterday is no longer today. And no past is already offset.

As the current schoolchildren write on the Internet, using the teacher’s jargon, “rolled up”. Only the bank account is somewhat soothing, but not much. Everything is in doubt, even money. What worked yesterday, today is hopelessly skidding. Success is that now. And if you once caught him by the tail, then, of course, I would like to prolong these relations – or at least visibility. The memory of euphoria, success and its taste will be stronger than vodka. As they say: “The hand remembers itself”.

In this regard, there is a common strategy, both in individual individuals and large companies that boils down to simple: success is the image of success. This is approximately like sober pretending to be drunk in the hope. Or as a woman simulating an orgasm, believes that he will receive it in this way. A fairly common practice shows: Simulation of success in some way is success. We can explore this phenomenon daily on Instagram (extremist organization banned in Russia).

All my long observations of the population of the planet Instagram (an extremist organization banned in Russia) (rather, behind the female part) did not give me an answer to the main question of the present: “Do puffy lips lead to success or vice versa – success leads to puffy lips?»Nevertheless, everything is positive.

Positive photos against the background of fairy -tale castles, respectable cars … It seems to me that they surpass even cats in total. Be cooler, this is a success! More recently, it worked, and even efficiently. Success as an image.

More recently, only hundreds of thousands of people possessed the skills and possibilities of broadcasting the image of success. Now these are billions

Pop stars, in the broad meaning of this word, in the last twentieth century successfully broadcast success, since they had exclusive access to media. Now everything has changed dramatically. Media became available to everyone. More recently, only hundreds of thousands of people possessed the skills and possibilities of broadcasting the image of success. Now these are billions. No radiant smile against the backdrop of the alpine mountains or a video from the salon of red Ferrari, you no longer paralyze. Do not push him into the chair in front of the TV.

The layman has become difficult, oh, how difficult. He himself already has a lot of such photos. And let them be made using Photoshop or rented by the car, the image is just an image, an illusion. In the possibility of production of illusions, an ordinary person was equal to advertising agencies, television channels, and even more so magazines. Their omnipotent exclusive for the production of celestials ended, remained in the last century.

The sky fell to the ground. The television broadcast ceased to be a closed habitat of the gods, from where they broadcast and broadcast their first lives and will. Since the appearance of the first reality shows into the divine air, the holy of holies, not even the heroes-gingerbread, but ordinary commoners, broke. Today, the nature of pop stars has changed dramatically. If yesterday they were of a different quality, a different properties, differed significantly from us, today they are one of many billions, billions of essential equal images on the screen. Someone is brighter, someone is dull. Someone has more subscribers, someone has less. But essentially, in their nature, they are equal.

Everyone has Instagram (an extremist organization banned in Russia), YouTube, VKontakte – the means of success were in the hands of broad masses. There is no fundamental difference, as before, between the layman and a certain person. This question is removed. Everyone became media junctions.

A simple student arranges a photo shoot with technical means almost like in a gloss. And in theory, she can get an audience more than the Time program. Remember, there was such a program? There was also the program “The Director itself”. I would actualize it by calling it “myself Ernst”. Because access to the button, even if not for the first, but still to the button, already has.

Weapons of mass destruction became massively affordable. It belongs to all of you. These emitters, everyone has smartphones, in the pocket of each layman. And how happens to all tricks and manipulations, when they are unraveled, replicated, they cease to surprise. Stop working like a focus and create an illusion in which you can believe. If everyone knows how to make a focus – this is no longer a focus.

Thus, the strategy “Success is the image of success” outlines its. She

“turned” her, devalued. Everyone knows about this focus, and only by inertia it still exists, steadily striving for sunset. As a quintessence of any current discussion, Battle of the purulent and Oximiron is very indicative in this sense. It would be possible to take Sobchak and Navalny. Pozner and Yarovy. But to make your way to the real meaning of these disputes through political thickets is more difficult and longer. Therefore, purulent and oximiron. Although they are all about the same.

If you discard the stylistic, taste and other particularly and try to catch the essence of the theater-rhymic battle, then we can see the confrontation of two different strategies. You might even say, these are two different concepts of presentation of yourself as a mediator in media space. The first concept is oximiron. He, apparently, has not yet fully realized the inaccessibility of advancement of himself through success as an image of success. And then there, then he breaks through in the proofuberans of this dead sun.

The second concept is purulent. Let’s call it “non -demiga”. In fact, two products collided on the advertising market, where everyone fights for the audience, offering her himself and his own concept of success. Promotion of oneself is carried out by discrediting the success of the opponent. More precisely, the authenticity of someone else’s success is discredited. The success of the opponent is called into question, declared false, fake or image. And in whom the old -type star will appear more, who still looks with hope in the void and tries to navigate the old star of the starry sky, who did not take the heavenly crash seriously, who believes in the divine exclusivity of the stars, he is recorded in the losers.

If you try to deconstruct all public, star battles in recent years, we will get all the same disputes about authenticity. The oddity lies in the fact that they pass in the absolutely gaming space. What authenticity then are we talking about? Here everything is subordinated to conventions and conditions, moves according to the rules: the location of the participants, timing, lighting, mutual accusation of hypocrisy and crafty, concealment of genuine motives, distortion of reality, falsification of history. And, in the end, success is on the side of the one who can convince the audience of their authenticity.

As you all know, farm products are in fashion, not greenhouse products. Today, the top is taken by one who is largely marks himself as a mediator, who does not contain GMOs. In the dry balance, we get the composite and the main part of the new success – the failure of all kinds of fertilizers of the image. Or removal of the image as a problem using its deliberate hypertrophy. For example, white lenses, tattoos on the face, the wildest hair colors directly demonstrate to us that this is no longer cosmetics, but makeup, an image in a square. Which does not seem to retire authenticity, but on the contrary, shows it and emphasizes it. Instead of ball – carnival. This is no longer an image, but an image. Feel, as they say, the difference.

發佈留言

發佈留言必須填寫的電子郵件地址不會公開。 必填欄位標示為 *

Scroll to Top