Certainly, controlled nonconformism in itself a threat for society is not. He only gives lives taste of variety. But border possible can be broken elementally and unexpectedly. Especially notedly it becomes in Eastern Europe of end of 90th. Radical style, exported from the countries of «center» in the countries of «periphery» together with other attributes of new culture of middle class, begins there little by little filled with radical maintenance. There is it to a great extent elementally. East Europe societies not outliving revolution of 60th, attached to the culture of western middle class, become receptive and to the that complex of ideas, presentations and senses which gave it a primary impulse.

Already in 1970th an official art in «communist» countries is done more formal and callous, and all flesh becomes in one or another degree opposition, however at the same time little by little loses connection with feeding him by cultural and ideological tradition. The searches of new ideas appeared no more effective, than searches of new aesthetics. This was the hotshot attempt of soviet people to leave off to be soviet, becoming nothing other.

The cultural crisis of 90th is often described in economic categories: there were not investments in the cinema, subsidies became beggarly theaters, large-scale exhibitions became rareness et cetera But the breaking out crisis of identity was much more frightful, than shortage of money. And the sharpness of this crisis appeared straight proportional efforts of the most creative intelligentsia to finish soviet tradition – unique, what it had. This fanaticism of destruction (possibly, last, that remained living from all revolutionary culture) appeared not simply the most strong emotional beginning, but also became the unique uniting idea, the same doing impossible appearance of any other creative ideas. It was assumed that the ideals of open market would generate a new culture automatically. But such naive presentations could arise up only for soviet people, deprived market experience, and that is why not realizing, that a market and bourgeoisness is hostile a culture in principle (for this reason all waves of update of western culture in XIX-XX ages in any case built on antibourgeoisness).

Disintegration of soviet culture meant the end of anti-soviet opposition in a culture. Interest to of 70th and 80th began swiftly to vanish, as these cultural phenomena stopped to be (it in an equal degree belongs and to the «new advance-guard» with artistic exhibitions and to the novels). Business is not in that, that these works of art were bad – many of them were just good. But they executed a certain function which disappeared together with soviet orders. An exception is a fate-culture of 70th and 80th, which continued to develop and being legalized. Large money played the same corrupting role here, as well as in the west. Fate-idols of 80th (such, as Andrey Makarevich) to the 90-m corrupted and grew into the standards of snobbery and hopeless bourgeoisness, heroes began 90th (be that «Alice», «SANTOBANE» or «Lyube») also compromised itself, frequently losing a capacity for an innovation. But them with a striking quickness changed new persons and names. In this case a picture little differs from world. Shou-biznes is able commercially to master and simultaneously to destroy it (brilliant description of this process is given in works of Tom Franka*). But at the same time, losing one heroes, generates other here, which it, probably, also will lose before long. There is a nourishing environment, able to be reproduced and generate all new and new creative leaders, for self-affirmation of which, at least, on the first stages, it is necessary declarative to enter the lists both official norms and «being» for sale and «corrupted» representatives of past generation. This permanent rebelling is the form of existence of environment: its complete absorption is not advantageous even, because he is not able to generate new creative ideas.