Difference between revisions of "Kvartirniki (Russia)"

''Kvartirniki'' emerged following the Second World War in response to the USSR’s strict ideological censorship of the arts and the increased dissatisfaction of those returning from war with the Soviet regime. Although no statistics are available, it is reasonable to assume that their popularity peaked in the 1980s, as this decade is often referenced by Russian media sources comparing modern ''kvartirniki'' with those of the past. Public displays of discontent were scarce and thus Soviet citizens explored informal methods of expressing themselves in private. Figes highlights this attitude in his work The Whisperers, noting that ‘the art of wearing masks was perfected’ during this post-war period (Figes 2007: 139). The practice benefitted greatly from the construction of individual housing, the Khrushchevka flats, in response to the Soviet housing crisis of the 1960s. These low-cost apartment buildings marked a departure from Soviet communal living, giving a large proportion of the population their own private living space and therefore more freedom to discuss politics without fear of being reported. As a result, a new platform for dissent had emerged. The kitchen became a hotbed of dissident activity, providing an ideal location for sharing ''[[samizdat]]'' and ''[[magnitizdat]]'' and for hosting informal political discussion groups, known as ''‘dissident kitchens’''.

''Kvartirniki'' emerged following the Second World War in response to the USSR’s strict ideological censorship of the arts and the increased dissatisfaction of those returning from war with the Soviet regime. Although no statistics are available, it is reasonable to assume that their popularity peaked in the 1980s, as this decade is often referenced by Russian media sources comparing modern ''kvartirniki'' with those of the past. Public displays of discontent were scarce and thus Soviet citizens explored informal methods of expressing themselves in private. Figes highlights this attitude in his work The Whisperers, noting that ‘the art of wearing masks was perfected’ during this post-war period (Figes 2007: 139). The practice benefitted greatly from the construction of individual housing, the Khrushchevka flats, in response to the Soviet housing crisis of the 1960s. These low-cost apartment buildings marked a departure from Soviet communal living, giving a large proportion of the population their own private living space and therefore more freedom to discuss politics without fear of being reported. As a result, a new platform for dissent had emerged. The kitchen became a hotbed of dissident activity, providing an ideal location for sharing ''[[samizdat]]'' and ''[[magnitizdat]]'' and for hosting informal political discussion groups, known as ''‘dissident kitchens’''.

The USSR’s collapse and sharp reductions in state censorship led to an increase in apolitical ''kvartirniki'', which nonetheless remained popular. Numerous regional Russian newspaper articles addressed this topic in the early 2000s and 2010s. A 2012 Riazanskie Vedomosti article compared modern ''kvartirniki'' in Ryazan with those of the 1980s, arguing that they maintained their popularity due to their intimacy, exclusivity and close contact with the artists (Shelyakina 2012). This view is corroborated by a 2010 Molodoi Kommunar article that examined ''kvartirniki'' in Tula. Although the article pointed out that there had ‘been no persecution of musicians for a long time, therefore there is no need to hide in apartments’, people were still drawn to the practice because of the connection formed between the artist and the viewer (‘Kvartirniki’ 2010). Despite losing their political connotations, ''kvartirniki'' evidently retained their popularity, with one Nezavisimaya Gazeta article arguing in 2004 that modern ''kvartirniki'' were almost as popular as they had been pre-perestroika (Okulova 2004). Their resurgence is often attributed to the rise of the internet, with the article pointing out the ease of spreading information online and the subsequent reduced reliance on word of mouth. New websites and forums dedicated to the practice often even had booking systems. As a result, the cultural significance of the practice had begun to alter. Furthermore, state responses to apolitical ''kvartirniki'' demonstrate that the practice is only tolerated by the authorities when they are not considered to represent dissent.

The USSR’s collapse and sharp reductions in state censorship led to an increase in apolitical ''kvartirniki'', which nonetheless remained popular. Numerous regional Russian newspaper articles addressed this topic in the early 2000s and 2010s. A 2012 Riazanskie Vedomosti article compared modern ''kvartirniki'' in Ryazan with those of the 1980s, arguing that they maintained their popularity due to their intimacy, exclusivity and close contact with the artists (Shelyakina 2012). This view is corroborated by a 2010 Molodoi Kommunar article that examined ''kvartirniki'' in Tula. Although the article pointed out that there had ‘been no persecution of musicians for a long time, therefore there is no need to hide in apartments’, people were still drawn to the practice because of the connection formed between the artist and the viewer (‘Kvartirniki’ 2010). Despite losing their political connotations, ''kvartirniki'' evidently retained their popularity, with one Nezavisimaya Gazeta article arguing in 2004 that modern ''kvartirniki'' were almost as popular as they had been pre-perestroika (Okulova 2004). Their resurgence is often attributed to the rise of the internet, with the article pointing out the ease of spreading information online and the subsequent reduced reliance on word of mouth. New websites and forums dedicated to the practice often even had booking systems. As a result, the cultural significance of the practice had begun to alter. Furthermore, state responses to apolitical ''kvartirniki'' demonstrate that the practice is only tolerated by the authorities when they are not considered to represent dissent.