Rostropovich

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32629, 10 June 1971, Page 10

Rostropovich

Sir,—The answer to John Bateman’s unimaginative alternatives is: neither. The welfare of all its citizens is the primary concern of the

socialist State. Providing the most favourable conditions for the growth of the arts is considered an essential adjunct to that welfare; the arts are placed beyond the necessity of mere profitmaking. Prices, within the reach of all citizens, are charged for all theatrical and concert performances to which Soviet citizens respond with enthusiastic patronage. Generous subsidies are provided for all theatre—drama, opera and ballet, schools of fine art, music conservatories, drama schools, even a circus school. Students are paid stipends while studying. Cultural exchange agreements give Soviet citizens opportunities to enjoy the arts of other peoples. It is instructive to recall the experience of the Maori Theatre. In the Soviet Union enthusiastic packed houses at ail performances; in the United States cancellation of the tour through lack of interest. —Yours, etc., M.C.H. June 9, 1971.

Sir,—“M.C.H.” has not proved that the above-named was not placed under house arrest. Involuntary journeys to Siberia are not jargon propaganda, as he could discover if he extended his knowledge of art by reading Andrei Amabrik’s “Involuntary Journey to Siberia.” He absurdly afgues that, because manifestation of art suffered no harm under Vatican patronage, it cannot under that of the Kremlin. Somehow he knows artists are in allegiance to a system of which one fancy is, “Man is a material being, matter in motion, nothing more.” Regarding any indignation of Rostropovich, as an artist with or without a policeman breathing down his neck, he would resent “M.C.H.” describing him as a product of a system. Art is not art if it is qualified. It needs no adjectives, and “M.C.H.” makes me believe “the Soviet system of statesupported art” is not in fact art. —Yours, etc., A. B. CEDARIAN. June 9,197 L