Lev Lifshits about the transfer of the Iveron Icon from the funds of the Historical Museum of the Church

On May 24, 2012, comments were published by art critic Lev Lifshitz and an employee of the Historical Museum Marina Chistyakova regarding the transfer to the Church of another monument from the museum fund - the Iveron Icon of the Mother of God from the collection of the State Historical Museum. Based on the order of the Ministry of Culture, this icon wastransferred to the Novodevichy Convent by the President of the Russian Federation on May 6.

Marina Chistyakova, deputy director of the Historical Museum for scientific work, said in a conversation with journalists: “There was no discussion, no one contacted us, we were simply presented with a fait accompli. Everything was done very quickly, literally in two or three days. This is a great loss for us, because the Iveron Mother of God is an outstanding monument of national importance. And this is not the first loss. When we left the Novodevichy Convent, large volumes remained there - five iconostases and some other things that make up the interior of the Smolensk Cathedral (chandelier, etc.). True, it was difficult to argue with this, because the interior should not be exposed. The Iveron Icon is a slightly different story. This is a separate monument, although it is directly connected with the history of the Novodevichy Convent, it is not included directly in the interior.”

According to Lev Lifshits, head of the department of ancient Russian art at the State Institute of Art History, the transfer of monuments and religious objects to the Church is “the result of an absolutely purposeful and completely understandable policy of dividing the entire society into cells according to ethnic and religious principles, turning religion into a kind of ideological instrument that displaces the concept of faith and the concept of culture.”

“Now all the monuments that were in the foreground and symbolized the result of centuries of spiritual development of the entire society, from which no sane person has ever excluded the Church, are under threat,” he said. - But the Church, on the contrary, now excludes culture. For people who determine policy in our country, this is a very convenient position – dividing society and destroying what is the crystallizing core.”

Lev Lifshits once again emphasized that the museum community and society as a whole were open to dialogue, to joint work, from the very beginning: “We were the first to extend our hands to the Church and say: “Let's do joint projects. This is our common heritage. You must to be proud that the treasures that were created in the bosom of the Church have become national treasures." This only shows the significance of such a heritage, which is now, on the contrary, being humiliated. By taking everything away, they divide society.”

The Church, however, independently “wants to own material values,” but “spoils them and does not know how to restore or store them.”

Sources

• Palveleva L. Iveron Mother of God: Shrine or property? // Radio Liberty. 2012. May 24.