• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site

Article

Наследие Маяковского vs Хлебникова в рецепции авторов неподцензурной литературы

For the Russian uncensored poets of the second half of the 20th century there was an acute problem of building their own creative continuity with respect particularly to the part of the Russian culture, which traditions, according to many of them, were artificially interrupted during the implantation of socialist realism. Thus, according to Lev Losev, a significant figure of his generation, on that moment just entering the world of poetry, was 
 * Павловец Михаил Георгиевич —  кандидат филологических наук, доцент, Школа филологии Факультета гуманитарных наук Научно-исследовательского университета «Высшая школа экономики»; pavlovez@mail.ru ** Публикация подготовлена в рамках поддержанного РГНФ научного проекта № 16–04–00413.
270
Vladimir Mayakovsky, whose canonization in the Soviet period afforded an opportunity to join legally the creation of poets of his circle, first and foremost — V elimir Khlebnikov. However, you can see how in the perception of a number of uncensored poets Mayakovsky not gives way, but opposes to Khlebnikov. For example, for Alexander Kondratov, the Leningrad poet-neofuturist, Khlebnikov was among three most significant poets, whereas in his works he gave very critical evaluation to Mayakovsky primarily because of his political involvement. In addition, «transfuturist» Sergei Sigey in his article «The purpose of the “futuristic writing”» categorically denied the Mayakovsky’s right to be considered as a true futurist because of his deficiently aesthetic radicalism.