The Russian Civic Chamber's Commission on Preservation and Development of Culture seems to move from one scandalous topic to the next. At its previous meeting, a discussion of the general development plan of Moscow, representatives of the city stormed out of the hall following an emotional speech by art collector Marat Gelman. At its most recent meeting, the collective effect of speeches of Mr. Gelman, commission chairman and director of the Central House of the Artist Vitaly Bychkov and numerous museum representatives was enough to drive archpriest Vsevold Chaplin out of the room.
However, if during the meeting on Moscow’s development plans, the consensus opinion was strongly behind Mr. Gelman, this time the opinion was more evenly divided. One the one hand, museum workers provided well supported arguments explaining why they oppose proposed reforms, while on the other hand representatives of the church provide one rather weighty argument in favor – historical justice.
Hermitage director and chairman of the Union of Russian Museums Mikhail Piotrovsky spoke against using such an argument. Professor Alexei Batalov, a member of the Ministry of Culture’s Council for Preservation of Cultural Heritage, asks: “If we are talking about restoring historical justice, the fight for historical values, then why are we avoiding the word restitution?” And if we are going to use such a disputed term, then it is important that we understand at which historic moment we want to return to establish this justice. And in this case, it is quite possible that the descendants of royal families could provide a lot of competition to the Russian Orthodox Church, Batalov notes.
“The establishment of historical justice is not the same thing as restitution (i.e., the return of confiscated property to the rightful owner), as in many cases it is not easy to determine who has the right to sacred objects. But [the proposed reforms] suggest the total reassignment of rights according to a rather nebulous principle – religious designation,” explains Alexei Batalov. “The drafters of the law, either consciously or unconsciously, have called into question the statues of historic monuments of all types with so-called religious designation, which in essence includes all art from the middle ages. The law foresees the total removal of such objects from the museum fund and thus returns our country to the reality of the 19th century.
Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church prefer not to digress into deep historical discussions. Hegumen Pakhomy says that the transfer of this property to the church is “something that, sooner or later, must happen.”
When the discussion of the proposed legislation first began, it was much easier to see it in black and white. The document was developed by (and continues to remain under the auspices of) the Ministry of Economic Development, a structure that along with the Ministry of Finance is not very inclined to accept the arguments of the museum workers. For this reason, the main aim of the legislation is to transfer a portion of state-owned architectural monuments to religious organizations. As it became clear during the process of the developing the legislation, its implementation will not mean an end to support from the state budget for restoration of these monuments.
The Ministry of Economic Development has decided not get involved in the cultural disputes surrounding the legislation. “The Ministry of Economic Development is preparing legislation with regard to the property rights,” Ministry advisor Ekaterina Biryukova said at the meeting. “We sent the text of the law to the Ministry of Culture but we have not received its conclusion.”
At the same time, the Ministry of Culture and Rosokhrancultura have proposed amendments to the legislation. A large portion of the amendments concern historic and cultural monuments.
“We did not include an article on the preservation of objects of cultural heritage in this legislation, as it would duplicate existing legislative norms,” Biryukova explained. And from the legal point of view, this is quite correct.
However, instances in which current norms are not observed are no rarity. And the violations are committed by state organizations, private owners and religious organizations. For example, archpriest Dmitry Smironov was recently fined for making changes to the cupola of and additions to his church, which is considered an architectural monuments. He is currently appealing the 10,000-ruble fine
“The state cultural preservation organs do not function well enough. If the work is done without heart and soul, then nothing good will come of it,” says Pakhomy. “The work should be done in cooperation with the Church. To begin with, the museums need to be inventoried so that we can understand what it is that we want to take. Perhaps we, the Church, should not take everything all at once.” Apparently he was not aware that the museums have just completed a major inventory project.
Another representative of the church, archimandrite Ioann, also expressed the view that all instances of inappropriate use of monuments is due to the poor functioning of oversight bodies. He also pointed to positive examples of how the church has properly preserved historic cathedrals using its own funds. Other representatives of the church mentioned examples of how museums are failing to properly preserve such monuments, noting the Museum of the East as a case in point.
As far as “moveable” property – icons and other church utensils – is concerned, the proposed legislation does not have any language regulating this area. There are references to existing norms which make it seem unlikely that museums will be forced to hand over treasures against their will.
Biryukkova also said that the government is in no hurry to introduce this legislation for consideration by the Duma, and all interested ministries and departments will have the chance to review and make suggestions with regard to the law. It remains to be seen whether the opinion of the Ministry of Culture will have a significant impact on the wording of the final document.
As far as the Russian Orthodox Church is concerned, it is difficult to call the decision of Vsevold Chaplin, chairman of the Synod Department for Cooperation between the Church and Society, to demonstratively walk out of the Civic Chamber’s meeting constructive.
One of the arguments of proponents of the reform is as follows: how can I, as a believer, stand alone before an icon and genuflect in a museum? And this is a viable question, but why has this become so crucial right now. It seems quite normal to view icons in museums as objects of art, while those in churches can be appreciated as spiritual objects. And if the current situation was so discomforting to believers, why didn’t these reform efforts come from below? Why weren’t these efforts to transfer icons from museums to churches initiated by our Orthodox believers.
However, according to a survey carried out by Alexei Lebedev, chief academic advisor of the Russian Institute of Cultural Studies, more than 70% of respondents are against the transfer of historic and cultural monuments to religious organizations.
