|
|
|
|
|
|
|
   Do the Atlases hold up the
sky? Elena Yakovleva If you say the phrase "temple to art," anyone will understand that you are talking about a museum, despite the fact that an all-out war is now underway between temples and art. It includes both a dispute over cultural treasures that were seized from the Church at some point and transferred to museums, and the Church's tense attitude towards artistic campaigns that offend the religious feelings of believers. Unexpectedly, one of the most famous museum workers in the country, Mikhail Piotrovsky, the director of the Hermitage, and the vicar of the famous Alexander Nevsky Monastery, Bishop of Vyborg, Nazarius (Lavrinenko) decided to enter into a real dialogue. A correspondent from Rossiskaya Gazeta was there to witness it. The time to look for solutions Bishop Nazarius: In the beginning, Mikhail Borisovich and I did not manage to have a dialogue. Each of us held to our position. In recent years, however, it has become obvious that we had to begin a constructive conversation. Otherwise matters would have reached a dead end. His Holiness the Patriarch advises us to engage in conversation with people with different position whenever significant events occur. And so Mikhail Borisovich and I met. After our meeting, I did not say "we need nothing from the museums" and he did not say "take whatever you like," but, having spoken, we saw where compromises are possible. Mikhail Piotrovsky: I don't like it when people are dismissive of conservation, like: "Well, what does it matter, it's all a bunch of talk." Talking is a very important part of life. First of all, it's how we interact in a human way, secondly, we develop common solution. By the way, the solution we find does not obligate us to retreat from our principles. Although the most important principle for us is understanding that culture and the Church have a common purpose: to make people better. We do it in different ways, however. Bishop Nazarius: We have a wonderful example of cooperation; the Hermitage returned the central candelabra of the Trinity Cathedral to us. Not without a struggle, of course, but still... Mikhail Piotrovsky: The candelabra wound up in the Hermitage after the
looting of the Trinity Cathedral. During the war, a silver chandelier
in the Peter's Room broke terribly, with no chance of restoring it; the
candelabra "saved" us by illuminating the Lesser Throne Room.
But we understood that there was also sense in returning it to the Trinity
Cathedral. So, after giving it some thought, we reached a decision at
a session of the scientific council; it served us well, but it had played
its cultural role, and we could return it with gratitude. It's true, we
had nothing in the Peter's Room after that, but we've already found something. Bishop Nazarius: As a person of the Church, I hold to the position that what was taken from the Church must be returned. However, just "up and taking it" is unacceptable, just like "up and leaving it." Mikhail Borisovich doesn't have the things that were taken at his summer house, nor do I want to bring them to mine. The Hermitage is a state institution; the Church is a huge public organization; we have to take all the details into account, both government policy and the law on museum treasures, and the opinion of the many people, both clerical and lay. It seems to me that the time for compromise has not yet come. We have to fully elucidate our positions, consider everything that has come before and pray for the other people's sins to be forgiven. But we already understand that is it possible and necessary to find compromises. In terms of where to begin, it seems to me that we would have to find the "basic option." This is how that would look for me: out of all of the Church items in museums, the first things that must be returned are wonder-working icons and relics. They have sacred significance and are objects of worship. This is even more true when we consider the fact that museums often hold wonder-working icons which are not that significant in terms of their artistic value. Relics often lie in closets somewhere. Mikhail Piotrovsky: When it comes to relics, I am in full agreement.
We have prepared a list; the Hermitage holds about 50 relic items, for
potential transfer to the Church. Everything would already have been agreed
upon, but during the transfer of relics in the Kremlin, it turned out
that it was necessary to transfer not only the relics, but also the reliquaries
that contain them, which have artistic value, and everything ground to
a halt in Moscow. But everything necessary to do that is in place. By
the way, we have transferred the relics of Saints of the Armenian Church. Mikhail Piotrovsky: Every instance like that has to be discussed, I think. Perhaps they were using those boxes for a second time. In fact, very careful records were kept, since everything that was taken from the Church was intended to be melted down. The only thing left in museums is what people managed to save. The object in another context Mikhail Piotrovsky: The historical role of museums always consisted of preserving cultural heritage, which includes religious heritage, and passing it on in a somewhat different context. For example, Christianity destroyed ancient statues... Bishop Nazarius: I hope that you know better than me that the name of the previous pharaoh would be taken off pyramids... Mikhail Piotrovsky: Yes, but at the same time, under the aegis of Christianity, museums appeared, where ancient sculptures were put placed as museum pieces. It is true that during the revolutions, opponents' cultural treasures were appropriated, but one of the functions of museums was to remove objects from their previous context, call them art and preserve them independently. By the way, they take on new meaning in museums. Religious items taken from the Church and then located in Museums during Soviet times, served to cultivate the public. This cultivation had a religious aspect as well. People would always bring children to see Raphael's paintings in order to tell them about the Bible. People learned who the Apostle Paul was in Soviet times by looking at the great Veronese's painting "The Conversion of Saul." Bishop Nazarius: When an icon is exhibited in a museum like a painting, it surely does not lose its sacred meaning, but that does not depend on the museum. Mikhail Piotrovsky: But people who come to museums don't go to church. Therefore it is very important for them to find church art there. Bishop Nazarius: Anyone can go to a church just as easily as he can go to a museum. It's not as if we stop people at the threshold and ask them if they believe in God. People just come. I would like to note that museum specialists only know Church art well from the point of view of art. As for the point of view of its inner spiritual content, which is embodied in its every detail, that, alas, remains unknown even to the greatest art critics. Museums shouldn't flatter themselves that those who go to museums and not churches can understand the essence of faith. Mikhail Piotrovsky: But there are many things that they will learn more about at a museum than in a church. Museums are educational institutions. Still, there are probably things that can only be learned in a church. A church and a museum are different contexts where people perceive things differently. When we consider the newly emergent museum function in relation to an object taken out of a church context, we must discuss and decide on an individual basis: in one case removal from the original context is acceptable, in another it does not correspond to the meaning of the object, such as in the case of relics in a museum. The argument over the reliquary Mikhail Piotrovsky: Here a story that everyone has been hearing about lately is quite illustrative, that of the headstone of Alexander Nevsky. It is not an icon, not an object of worship. Bishop Nazarius: Yet it is not free of sacred meaning. For a believer, that which has come into contact with holy relics also becomes holy. An icon becomes holy if relics are placed in it. Mikhail Piotrovsky: But for us, it is a thing that was taken from its context and given a new one in a museum. Its new function has been actively incorporated into the life of the Hermitage. Yes, it was taken from the Church, but let's take a look at history: Peter once took the relics of Alexander Nevsky from Vladimir and brought them to Petersburg, so shouldn't they be returned to Vladimir now? Bishop Nazarius: The relics were not taken from the Church, they remained within it, although the people of Vladimir themselves probably weren't exuberant about the Emperor's order. Mikhail Piotrovsky: But now it is not the relics, but the headstone that stands in the Winter Palace, the entire internal program of which is built as a symbol of the military triumph of Russia: the Field Marshall Hall, the military gallery, Alexander I at each corner. And Alexander Nevsky with his victories over the Germans on the Neva is depicted in our bas-reliefs. This is why the headstone fits wonderfully into the general historical and symbolic "plan" of the Winter Palace. Our palace-museum either accepts something or doesn't, and it has "accepted" this thing. Millions of people come to the Hermitage to see it. In my opinion, there would be nothing wrong with letting the headstone stay in the museum and for a blessed copy to be made for the storage of the relics. This is even more true when we consider the fact that the copy will acquire sacred meaning by coming into contact with the relics. Bishop Nazarius: But if we had the headstone, then more people would come to the church too. But the most important thing is that it would be in its place! If something was made especially for the storage of a Saint's relics in a temple, then you must agree that it is a triumph of justice for it to correspond with its purpose. It would not lose its museum function in that place, while in the Hermitage, if you'll pardon me for saying so, it is kept in a dance hall. Mikhail Piotrovsky: No, it's called the Concert Hall, although there are never concerts there. That's simply one of the names of the grand halls of the Winter Palace. It's not as if we ought to rename it, is it? Bishop Nazarius: But it takes effort to explain all that. That is why one of the main arguments by those who defend the seizure of the reliquary is: it's in the wrong place. We have great respect for museums and the qualified specialists that work in them, who have gone to such lengths to preserve church treasures. They saved the very same reliquary of Alexander Nevsky from being melted down more than once! These efforts must be highly praised, and we ought to be grateful to them. But when it comes to the fate of the reliquary, the Cultural Council under the Patriarchy and His Holiness the Patriarch himself is working out his position. And I, even if I have a slightly different view, but I submit to the reason of the Church, as is our way. The most important thing, however, is that we already understand that we will handle the situation. That, in all seriousness, is a critical issue, and we must search for the most acceptable ways to resolve it. Mikhail Piotrovsky: First of all, a copy has to be made. Aside from the "basic option," there are also so-called deferred options. The question of the headstone of Alexander Nevsky can be considered a deferred one, for now. I'm deliberately saying "headstone" or "sarcophagus," and not a reliquary, since reliquary is still a wooden coffin... Bishop Nazarius:...which is also at the Hermitage. Mikhail Piotrovsky: Yes, we have that as well, the wooden, painted reliquary... Does this story demand a decision that sets a precedent? Mikhail Piotrovsky: For a long time now, as His Grace knows, I have been conducting correspondence on the subject of the headstone. This is my position: since the government that emerged after the Revolution looted both the Church and museums and its ideology was often primitively simple: grab it, sell it, melt it down, then now the government has a moral obligation to make up for what was taken from the Church. And the government's debt must not be reduced to simple forms of transferring things back and forth. We need a decision that will return that debt to the Church and not harm Russian Culture. What we are after is not a ton and a half of silver Mikhail Piotrovsky: The monastery had the famous instance with the Russian Museum... Bishop Nazarius: I spent six or seven years fighting to make sure that a painting by Grigory Ugryumov "The Grand Entry of Alexander Nevsky into the City of Pskov…"-which we were responsible for caring for, and which earlier, before the revolution, was given to the Monastery's Trinity Cathedral by Catherine II-would not be sent back to the museum. I refused to give it up, because what I was hearing was: "You'll pay, we'll make a copy, and take the original." Eventually, the Russian Museum agreed to make a copy at its own expense. We accepted it and it was put in its place, while we transferred the painting a year early. Later I said to Vladimir Gusev, "When we gave you the original, there was no press, but what a press-ball you held in the Marble Palace on the subject of how "The Russian Museum painted a copy for the monastery!" Mikhail Piotrovsky: Situations where the Church and museums meet each other halfway should not be concealed. Bishop Nazarius: We have precedents for mutual cooperation. On the occasion of the 1000-year anniversary of the Conversion of Russia, museums gave the Monastery 15 items to be temporarily held there. Every year, we present information about them and confirm our responsibility for them. Museum control is maintained over what was given to us. Mikhail Piotrovsky: The story of the transfer of the painting to the museum is a very good example. We value what the Church is doing very highly. Bishop Nazarius: In our life, the public is always looking for examples
of hard-headedness. Well, if there is reason and serious arguments, the
Church can reach compromises. And not just "grab for things"
as resentful bloggers write: "the Church wanted a ton and a half
of silver." But the silver is only important such a great Saint can
hardly be in plastic. We do not need the government to bring us a ton
and a half silver ingot. We receive that much silver in the course of
very little time indeed in our official jewelry workshop, where it is
turned into crosses and icon plating. So if anybody needed a ton and a
half of silver for some noble purpose, we could provide it ourselves. The museum in the Church Mikhail Piotrovsky: Still, it is not in vain that one of the main themes of our philosophy department is "The Museum and the Church." I think that Church museums will soon become quite timely, they must be developed. Bishop Nazarius: Before the Revolution they were common. At the monastery, we had the famous archives. Now there are items worthy of museum treatment and we are finishing the repairs on the spaces under the museum. Mikhail Piotrovsky: That is a particular type of museum. There are already people studying at our department who will work specially in Church museums. Bishop Nazarius: There are many things that are organized differently in the Church and in secular museums. Scientific restoration, for example, is aimed towards identifying and fixing the surviving image, while Church restoration makes up damage, but in such a way that everything could be returned to its original condition at any moment. Mikhail Piotrovsky: It is true that museum workers, according to the
Venetian Charter, are prohibited from adding anything while restoring
a painting. Although the artist-restorers of the Hermitage tone the image
so that a person can see the whole thing. In the Church, in my opinion,
the reversible restoration that his Grace described is permissible. It
is also very important to renew and preserve those unique features of
Church restoration. "Church archeology" is a separate ideology,
it has its own aesthetic principles and a slightly different attitude. Bishop Nazarius: Icon painting departments have emerged in our educational institutions, and courses are offered on "Church archeology." However, for museum work itself, however, and art criticism, we will, of course, have to learn from museum. I think that they will not refuse to help us, despite our disagreements. Mikhail Borisovich and I cannot afford to let ourselves argue like Ivan Ivanovich and Ivan Nikiforovich. The Church in the Museum Mikhail Piotrovsky: The Church of the Winter Palace is currently being restored, the tender for the restoration of the iconostasis has just been completed. It also includes pieces which, in principle, could be restored, as I showed His Grace. We have already discussed the fact that once the iconostasis has been restored, we will place some of the best Byzantine icons that we have in its cases, so that they can have a double function, as both museum and religious items. Furthermore, on December 25th, on the day of the expulsion of the enemies from our Fatherland, we will absolutely conduct a church service in that temple. This was once a state holiday, but then it dropped off the state calendar and remained exclusively a Church holiday. We would like to renew it in its secular form, with prayer in the Church and a small parade in the Winter Palace. Bishop Nazarius: And a Saint's day celebration, of course… Mikhail Piotrovsky: Yes, but we have to find a solution that is acceptable
to both sides. We cannot have frequent ceremonies, museum rules make it
impossible to light candles or conduct funerals and weddings. Bishop Nazarius: We often hear accusations: the Church cannot store museum
treasures. There is a grain of truth in that. Not every temple or monastery
can preserve a cultural masterpiece properly. However, I can say with
full responsibility that the Alexander Nevsky Monastery can. We have a
restoration workshop, experienced specialists and the capacity to display
items that have great cultural value in our museum. When acquiring some
rarity or another, we will certainly not limit its museum life. When we
discovered 30 headstones in the Fedorovsky Church over the buried Georgian
Tsars that would up in the Russian capital after the Treaty of Georgievsk,
we put so much money into subjecting them to museum preservation, to recreate
them and cover them with special glass! But I do not deny that there are
temples where a cultural masterpiece might be lost. When I sometimes visit
the old temples of the Yaroslavl region and see with how much care they
clean icons with a fragile paint layer, it nearly gives me heart attack.
Additionally, the temple might not be heated, they've never heard of ventilation...
You just want to take a brigade of restorers there for conservation work.
It seems to me that the Religious Academies must have academic courses
for those who want to dedicate themselves to Church art. We must base
everything on the experience of museums. Bishop Nazarius: Of course! We are no dilettantes, we only use licensed specialists for our restoration projects, although they are much more expensive. Mikhail Borisovich, you will not be surprised if I say that some Hermitage employees work for us... Mikhail Piotrovsky: Well, why not, if it's after their normal workday. Bishop Nazarius: Aside from exhibition area, monasteries and temples need special storage areas that follow the necessary rules, with the required temperature, etc. In that context I had a "dodgy" but important thought. If real cooperation was established between the Church and museums, our icons-cultural masterpieces- could, when necessary, be stored in museum facilities. With the conditions, that they remain ours, and, when necessary, we take them to a service or for exhibition in a Church museum. We would conclude an agreement on their transfer for storage, and as payment we could give the museum the right to exhibit them. Mikhail Piotrovsky: Right. It is exactly that kind of dynamic systems that we need in the 21st century. At the same time we need a system of guarantees, electronic tracking, etc. In my opinion, museum items may temporarily be given to the Church and Church items may temporarily become objects of scientific research in museums. We have experience, and that experience is more important than our dispute. Direct speech Mikhail Piotrovsky: Religious items taken from the Church and
then located in Museums during Soviet times, served to cultivate the public.
This cultivation had a religious aspect as well. People would always bring
children to see Raphael's paintings in order to tell them about the Bible.
People learned who the Apostle Paul was in Soviet times by looking at
the great Veronese's painting "The Conversion of Saul." Bishop Nazarius: And so Mikhail Borisovich and I met. After our
meeting, I did not say "we need nothing from the museums" and
he did not say "take whatever you like," but, having spoken,
we saw where compromises are possible. And we have a wonderful example
of cooperation; the Hermitage returned the central candelabra of the Trinity
Cathedral to us. By the way An arc with the relics of more than 30 saints was moved from the reserves
of the Tretyakov Gallery to the museum of the Church of St. Nicholas the
Wonderworker. The arc included the relics of such Saints as the apostles
Peter and Paul, the sanctifiers John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory
the Theologian and Nicholas the Wonderworker. http://www.rg.ru/2013/01/16/atlanty.html |
||||
Copyright © 2011 State Hermitage Museum |
