How David Bowie became the loathed adversary of a Soviet-era youth movement.

slate rectangle logo

David Bowie played many roles, from Ziggy Stardust and the Thin White Duke to cameos as far-flung as voicing a cartoon character on SpongeBob Squarepants to a fleeting appearance on David Lynch’s bizarre television show Twin Peaks. Bowie’s charisma and presence allowed him to shift with apparent effortlessness from character to character. One of the most outlandish roles of his career, however, was a part that he didn’t choose: among a certain set of Soviet citizens, Bowie became notorious as the immaculately fashionable foe of the artists’ collective and aspiring youth-movement masterminds known as Mitki.

By the early 1980s, David Bowie had been a well-established international celebrity for years. He had visited the U.S.S.R. twice during the 1970s and was photographed riding the Trans-Siberian Railway and visiting iconic landmarks, including Moscow’s Cathedral of St. Basil the Blessed. However, Bowie’s music was not officially allowed in the Soviet Union. Media restrictions suppressed a vast swath of “foreign-influenced” popular music, from Russian-language rock groups like Kino and AuktYon to global hitmakers like AC/DC and the Talking Heads.

These censorship policies kept Bowie from performing publicly during his 70s visits, and kept his recordings off the shelves. However, in cities like St. Petersburg—then Leningrad—those in the know could find cassette tapes of his albums with relative ease through the shadowy network of do-it-yourself transcribers known as samizdat.

September 1984 marked the release of Bowie’s album, Tonight, which included collaborations with Tina Turner and Iggy Pop.

That same September, as Bowie reaped the benefits of rock stardom, a young artist named Vladimir Shinkarev eked out a meager living as an attendant in a coal-powered boiler room in Leningrad. Toiling in the obscurity of officially sanctioned Soviet work had its advantages, however: he and others of his generation took advantage of ample time off to pursue outside interests. In Shinkarev’s case, these included painting, writing, and bonding with friends over copious bottles of cheap port wine.

Vladimir Shinkarev. Photo courtesy of Vladimir Shinkarev

On September 24th, Shinkarev began work on a series of tongue-in-cheek pamphlets that distilled the aesthetic of his peers into the manifesto of a youth movement. This movement was intended to be parallel with, but distinct from, Western subcultures such as the punk movement but with a proudly Russian twist. Dmitri Shagin is described in the pamphlet as not only the group’s figurehead, but also its most typical member. A painter and drinking companion of Shinkarev with a tendency to gently defy social convention by, say, shaking hands with women and kissing men on the cheek, Shagin embodied the absurdist quality of the movement. He professed a deep love for both the Imperial Russian and Soviet military, especially a fascination with all things naval, while simultaneously strictly rejecting violence in all forms. Thus, the Mitki were born.

Released in installments via the same samizdat system that circulated Bowie’s work, the Mitki texts found a receptive audience, starting among Leningrad youth and ballooning outward through much of the Russian-speaking world. Key features of a Mitki adherent were the blue-and-white striped tel’niashka shirts typical of Russian sailors coupled with a pacifistic desire to “not defeat anyone.” As for the name, Shinkarev explained that, very simply, it’s easy to type: the Cyrilic letters that comprise the word Mitki lie immediately next to each other on the bottom row of the Russian keyboard. The group functioned as a loosely-knit collective of largely apolitical underground artists and their supporters, hosting unofficial exhibitions and concerts until perestroika allowed them to emerge from hiding in the late 80s.

Bowie’s Thin White Duke-era flirtation with fascist ideology may have provoked the ire of the Mitki

Given the humble boiler room beginnings of the Mitki movement, it’s not surprising that overarching rejection of Western glamor is a central tenet of the group’s idiosyncratic philosophy. Exactly how Bowie was chosen as the principal representative of this glamor is a more complicated question. Bowie’s Thin White Duke-era flirtation with fascist ideology may have provoked the ire of the Mitki: a group fixated on Russian military endeavors, including, of course, the costly Soviet victory in World War II, could hardly be expected to approve of such a thing. Perhaps the Mitki were aware of Bowie’s exceedingly dandyish photo shoot in Moscow and disapproved of the juxtaposition of his rocker’s preening in front of Russian landmarks. Another possibility lies in the similarities between Bowie and the Russian rock musician—and Mitki compatriot—Boris Grebenshikov. Historian Solomon Volkov notes that Grebenshikov resembled and sometimes dressed similarly to the tall, thin superstar; it’s possible that Shinkarev cast Bowie as villain in order to subtly poke fun at his friend. One thing is for sure: when the Mitki decided upon Bowie as antagonist, they fixated on him mercilessly.

Shinkarev describes Bowie as the absolute antithesis of the Mitki style of dress. A true Mitki man, by his description, should be so intrinsically unfashionable that “he could wear a costume in the style of David Bowie as if it were an old torn coat.” At a later point in the Mitki series, Shinkarev tells the story of an American, a Frenchman, and a Mitki Russian, all of whom try and fail to save a drowning woman who has fallen off the side of a ship. Shinkarev says that when the American and the Frenchman enter the tale, a Mitki man should shout words to the effect of “All in all, that David Bowie! What a jerk!”. Bowie serves the Mitki as whipping boy for the sins of all proud Westerners. This aside is followed by a somewhat cryptic allusion to a future treatise, to be called The Fundamental Work ‘The Mitki and Bowie.

David Bowie’s Thin White Duke era. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Hofstra professor Alexandar Mihailovic recounts an alternative version of the “Woman Overboard” story, with a new ending provided by Mitki spokesperson Dmitri Shagin. In this variant, the antagonist—Bowie—goes forth to save the woman in a boat equipped with technological gadgets. His gear fails and he cannot save her, but the Mitki man is able to miraculously rescue both Bowie and the woman by walking on water. He comforts Bowie by referring to him by an overwrought diminutive name: Devidushka Bauyushka.

A drawing by Mitki member Aleksandr Florensky references the aforementioned treatise. Made to look like a book jacket, it features Bowie in a face-off with a typical Mitki adherent and is entitled The Fundamental Work ‘The Mitki and David Bowie,’ with the unhelpful subtitle, “The Fundamental Work ‘The Mitki and David Bowie’ Has Not Yet Been Written.” Bowie is depicted as clean shaven and spiky haired, with a pair of headphones that betrays his reliance on technology, which the Mitki professed to scorn.

Followers of the Mitki movement were obliged to flamboyantly, demonstratively resent David Bowie. It’s not clear that this resentment was rooted in actual dislike, however. The Mitki were engaging in a brand of Russian humor known as stiob: parody so deep that it can be impossible to tell sincerity from insincerity. Bowie as antagonist became a tongue-in-cheek trope, one of many such tropes that group members repeated ad nauseum as a way of strengthening collective Mitki identity.

By the late 80s, the Mitki name had enough traction to make the core collective fairly well-known and successful in their native region. However, high-profile rock concerts and meetings with celebrities and political figures strained the ties between the movement’s founders. Shinkarev did not appreciate the increased mainstream visibility, and made his feelings clear in 2010 with a book entitled End of the Mitki. Shagin, however, continues on under the Mitki name with a modified version of the original contingent of artists.

Boris Grebenshikov in 2009. Photo courtesy of Unpurrceivable/Wikimedia Commons

Boris Grebenshikov, the rocker and potential impetus for the Bowie-bashing, went on to develop a friendship with Bowie during the more permissive perestroika era. Grebenshikov is now considered an elder statesman of his generation of previously-underground musicians, and his band, Akvarium, is among the pantheon of Russian rock gods. In 2006 he took to the airwaves to extol Bowie’s virtues on Radio Rossii, Russia’s premier public radio station. Grebenshikov acknowledged Shinkarev’s superficially adversarial depiction of Bowie but went on to pronounce, “Look closely at the writer’s brilliant device. And you’ll see that in actuality David Bowie is in his own way the alter ego of the Mitki, their spiritual leader.”

And what of Shinkarev himself? “David Bowie seemed to the Mitki to be a significant phenomenon and, therefore, a competitor,” he told me. “The kind, relaxed, inconsistent and sloppy Mitki man—an earthy being—and the serpentine grace of the sparkling David Bowie. Of course these are antagonists, though I don’t know what Bowie himself thought.”

Ultimately, the Mitki fascination with Bowie has its roots in admiration. The unity of purpose of international counterculture proved strong enough to overcome differences in dress and political context. Devidushka Bauyushka is wrapped in a blue-and-white striped tel’niashka and welcomed into the fold in a moment of countercultural harmony. The Mitki representation of Bowie, as thoroughly fictive as it may be, is not too far from the effect the real Bowie could have on a listener: Bowie’s radical otherness could be alienating, but it could also blur boundaries.