RUSSIA RELIGION NEWS


 

Conflict rages over vigilantism in Moscow

MOSCOW MANEZH INTENDS TO SEEK OPENING OF CRIMINAL CASE OVER POGROM INCIDENT IN EXHIBIT

Interfax-Religiia, 17 August 2015

 

The Moscow Manezh will insist on opening a criminal case with respect to the leader of the movement God's Will, Dmitry Tsorionov (Enteo).

 

"There was the intent to cause property damage and inflaming of strife. There is still no estimate of the damage, because the works were confiscated by law enforcement agents; an expert will evaluate it next week. But we will insist on opening a criminal case. We filed a declaration regarding material damage yesterday," the press secretary of the Manezh association, Elena Karneeva, explained in a Govorit Moskva radio broadcast.

 

In her turn in a conversation with an Interfax correspondent, she clarified that the police removed four damaged linocuts; the exhibit is operating on a regular schedule.

 

Meanwhile, the press service of the State Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for Moscow told Interfax that the capital police are conducting an inquiry into the incident.

 

As was reported, on Friday evening, several Orthodox activists led by D. Tsorionov (Enteo) burst into an exhibit going on in the Manezh, "Sculptures that we do not see." [Reference to art works banned from public display during soviet era—tr.] The attackers declared that the exhibits hurt believers' feelings and they destroyed several works of art. The exhibit presented the work of a soviet artist, the avant-garde sculptor Vadim Sidur. (tr. by PDS, posted 17 August 2015)

 

ENTEO CLAIMS THAT HE DID NOT DAMAGE DISPLAYS IN MANEZH

He considers that the authorities did not protect sacred things and only resonance can change something

Interfax-Religiia, 17 August 2015

 

The leader of the movement God's Will, Dmitry Tsorionov (Enteo) declared that he and his colleagues did not damage displays of the exhibit in the Manezh.

 

"A terrible blasphemy has been vanquished. We hope that the exhibit will be closed and the guilty will be removed from office," D. Tsorionov wrote on Twitter.

 

He also reported that not a single sculpture in the Manezh was damaged. "We are talking about only a plate and pieces of linoleum" the activist declared.

 

"Our action is a shout, because they are not listening to us; the state today is not protecting our sacred things and only resonance can change something," he posits.

 

DMITRY TSORIONOV ON POGROM IN MANEZH AND ORTHODOX RADICALS

by Alexandra Fedotova

Lenta.ru, 17 August 2015

 

On 14 August activists of the movement God's Will conducted a pogrom at an exhibit of nonconformist art of the 1960s and 1970s, "Sculptures that we do not see," in the Manezh, damaging several displays they considered blasphemous. In particular, they did not like engraving on linoleum (linocut) depicting Jesus Christ nude and stylized heads of John the Baptist, drawn on plates. According to the curator of the exhibit, four works were damaged. Lenta.ru spoke with the organizer of the action, Orthodox activist Dmitry Tsorionov, nicknamed Enteo, about blasphemy, the limits of the permissible in art, and radicalism of believers.

 

--Lenta.ru: Why was it this exhibit?

 

--Tsorionov: In it was committed an unprecedented act of blasphemy which had no parallel in modern Russian history. Never was anything like this displayed in a public area, to say nothing of on state property. We are talking about pornography with Jesus Christ, about a horrible profanation of the Mother of God, about several dozen absolutely blasphemous works. There was a multitude of authors in this exhibit, including modern ones, and all united by the theme of blasphemy.

 

This has all been already. Marat Gelman has already attracted attention by his sacrilege in his lack of talent. We recall the exhibit "Beware: Religion." Many of those who damaged it became priests long ago. This is the normal reaction of society to a violation of what is most sacred in their life. Let each one ask himself what he would do if he saw a pornographic caricature of his mother, daughter, or wife, and how he would act if the state did not defend him.

 

--Why a direct pogrom? Didn't you think of turning to the police?

 

--On the level of declarations to the agencies regarding violation of article 148 and 282 of the Criminal Code ["violation of the right to freedom of conscience and religious confessions" and "incitement of hatred or strife along with demeaning of human dignity"—Lenta.ru note]. We also will file a lawsuit for slander. There was no damage among the displays. We took a piece of linoleum with blasphemy in order to show the law enforcement agencies. One plate from the IKEA store, which did not have anything to do with the display, was broken in the course of discussion. That's all. Not a single statuette was broken; that is filthy slander in order to divert attention from the fact that these people violated as a minimum two articles of the Criminal Code and they are threatened with real criminal prosecution.

 

--Why did you not act within the bounds of the law? Many believers and representatives of churches condemn you for the methods you have chosen. Vladimir Legoida compared them to the methods of Pussy Riot, which staged a punk prayer service.

 

--We would happily act within the bounds of the law; we have a remarkable lawyer. But so long as Vladimir Legoida relaxes at home, we will not ignore the trampling of our sacred things. We initiated the distribution of many thousands of statement regarding article 148 of the CC, and not one of these statements was translated into a criminal case.

 

--Perhaps there were no grounds? You also were arrested and could serve 15 days for petty hooliganism.

 

--"What modern civilization preaches today is a satanic idea." Patriarch Kirill's chief statements about the Internet, same-sex marriage, and crises. The law does not work. The government does not protect believers' feelings and does not protect our sacred things. That is the only reason we are forced to call society's attention to this matter. We are doing this by maximally peaceful means. Others in our place would act more radically and would be right.

 

Personally I am constantly faced with the phenomena of radicalism. I hear this from veterans of military actions and from those who came from the Donbass or fought in Chechnya and from representatives of the cossacks. I hear about the most diverse initiatives and some of them frighten me. I am doing everything possible to restrain these people, and to direct their just anger into a peaceful channel so that they express their protest in the legal field. Although what our movement does is creative action. We would very much like to call the police so that they would close the blasphemous exhibit, but that does not work.

 

--And did you try? By the established procedure: write a statement, lay out the facts. . .

 

--On Sunday we again came to the Manezh and approached a law enforcement officer. We told him that a violation of the criminal code according to the especially dangerous for society article was happening on the territory of the Manezh, and we asked him to stop the violation of law. A representative of the law is obliged to do this. But I am sure that nothing has changed.

 

If esteemed citizen Legoida managed to get just one precedent out of many cases of public blasphemy to be condemned on the basis of article 148, I would embrace him as my elder brother. And I would thank God that we have such a civilized society that protects our sacred things. But this does not work. Any church bureaucrat knows this very well. And we are forced to create public resonance. I personally cannot ignore how Jesus Christ is profaned; it pains my heart. And I am not alone; there are many of us, up to eight percent of the population of our country.

 

--What will you do if the exhibit continues to run?

 

--We will submit a statement to city hall about conducting a rally for 5,000 persons near the Manezh. If they grant it, fine, and we are sure that we will collect that many people without difficulty. We have sent a message to Minister of Culture Medinsky. We asked why a bureaucrat who lives on our taxes allows our sacred things to be trampled at government expense. What kind of lawlessness is this? Is he a satanist?

 

--There also was an appeal to Deputy Yaroslav Nilov, who heads the State Duma Committee on Affairs of Public and Religious Organizations. Under his leadership the law "On protection of believers' feelings" was created, and Nilov guaranteed that it would work, although experts doubted it. In the end the law did not work, and the deputy dared to condemn those believers who fulfilled their obligation. In the name of the public we raise the question about removing Mr. Nilov from his office by reason of professional incompetence. This includes that he is personally to blame that social tension arose up to the federal level. Like in the case of "Tannhauser" in Novosibirsk and in the case of the play in the Chekhov Art Theatre ["Ideal Husband—Lenta.ru note]. Social tension is growing and it is not clear what it will lead to. This bureaucrat should bear responsibility for it.

 

--It seems to me that the tension is being created by Orthodox activists. Before your action about this exhibit, few knew of it, and now it is in all the newspapers.

 

--An exhibit in the chief exhibition complex of Russia, whose opening was reported on three national channels—of course that's nonsense. Such a difference as what is being done there. Such a difference that in some apartment children are being raped and the criminal code is being violated. There is a difference!

 

For us it is obvious that this is a ritual act of blasphemy. It was on the day when the church celebrates the great holiday, the Elevation of the Cross of the Lord. It was on this day the sacred things were ritually profaned in the very center of Moscow, which the news media described. They are making this the norm for our society. We are categorically opposed. We are not calling attention to an exhibit; we are calling attention to an extremely serious moral choice. We are with God or against him; can we organize a just and free society where the religious freedoms of citizens are not being violated and their sacred things are not being violated? Or are we going to live like savages? We are talking about calling people's attention to the admission of blasphemy into the public space. The exhibit itself doesn't interest anyone; it is one of many shouts of satan, one of many provocations. People who deliberately create such profanation of Jesus Christ are the extremists.

 

--But after all Christianity teaches humility and forgiveness.

 

--Jesus Christ—love itself, gentleness itself—took a whip, overturned the moneychangers' tables, drove all who were behaving indecently from the sacred place Christianity is a religion of the strong, a religion of warriors, a religion of martyrs; it is a religion that conquers the whole world. Christians were never patsies. If you would examine what our saints teach, what our authorities teach—there are direct calls to achieve balance in society through violence so that any unbelievers will be afraid to profane Orthodox sacred things. I do not call for this, but it is written about by, for example, John Chrysostom. There are abundant cases where Christians fiercely defended their sacred things from profanation. That is normal. It is done in any religion.

 

--What hurts believers' feeling and what doesn't? Where is the boundary?

 

--The formulation "On protecting believers' feelings" is stupid. For me it has nothing to do with my feelings. The issue is desecration of sacred things. But since our godless legal system cannot define such concepts as "sacred" and "god," we are forced to create a substitute. The boundary is simple. Believers themselves always see it very well. The issue is religious symbols—Jesus Christ, the Mother of God, saints—when they are portrayed in an inappropriate and insulting form. That is blasphemy. Those who doubt it can ask any priest.

 

--It turns out that the subjects of faith and religion in art should be taboo so that nobody's feelings are hurt?

 

--It is necessary to treat one another with respect. If a person portrays Jesus Christ by pornography, one should think that this might very strongly offend somebody.

 

--Do you have in mind Jesus portrayed without a loincloth?

 

--Yes. Often untalented artists try to draw attention to their works by provocations, and I would like for this to be stopped by law. None of us is going to run about the Hermitage or the Tretiakov and demand that the busts on ancient statues be covered up. The issue is direct and deliberate desecration of our sacred things. Nobody intends to cross the boundaries and demand prohibition of something unreasonably.

 

--What are you trying to achieve?

 

--We want to be left in peace. We want for Russia to recall God so that the foundations of Christian morality will be present in our life. We want to live in a progressive, free society, where human norms of life are observed and people have some kind of ethical orientation.

 

--Surely moral orientation is formed in other ways than by an attack on art, which for many is just as important as the image of Christ is for you.

 

--For them it is important to profane Jesus Christ; they consider that it is their right, to cause pain to others. These people are extremists, and they should be isolated from society.

 

--Several rights advocates have already compared your action with the activity of the organization of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIL].

 

--In the first place, I would like to complain about the low level of the conduct of the debate by these people. Everybody who does not agree with their views, they smear as "Islamic Staters," just like earlier they were smeared as fascists, or as communists smear everybody as Vlasovites. This is a very cheap propagandistic approach. I am sure that one and the same spirit drives ISIL terrorists, these incarnate demons who destroy Orthodox monasteries and churches and sell nuns into slavery, and these "rights advocates" who want to defend the right of publicly profaning Jesus Christ. It is one and the same spirit and its name is Lucifer. He drives them. People defending the right of blasphemy are criminals, and in any civilized society nobody will sit to eat at the same table. They should be outcast; they are barbarians.

 

Why do they compare us with ISIL? Do we kill anybody, commit terrorist acts, kidnap? What kind of kindergarten is this? I want to note that nobody even beat these criminals who are organizers of the exhibit, although it would be morally right. (tr. by PDS, posted 17 August 2015)

 

SHCHIPKOV: "GOD'S WILL" STILL LOSING TO "NEW SAVAGERY" OF AVANT-GARDE

RIA Novosti, 17 August 2015

 

Political scientist and sociologist of religion Alexander Shchipkov, member of the Inter-sobor Presence of Russian Orthodox Church, shared his thoughts in connection with the sensation that erupted over the action by "Orthodox activists" at the exhibit in the Manezh.

 

The attack by activists of the movement God's Will at the exhibit in the Manezh, that has become in the past few days one of the most discussed topics by domestic news media, was commented upon, at RIA Novosti's request, by a member of the Inter-sobor Presence of the Russian Orthodox Church, Alexander Shchipkov:

 

In speaking about the incident in the Manezh, it is completely impossible to avoid the aesthetic, artistic aspect of the matter, because it is also very important. After all, the issue is not simply that some hooligans dropped by the exhibit and committed there a disorder and then were arrested. They put forward ideological demands: close the exhibit, which in their opinion offends the feelings of those who bear the name of Christ—Christians.

 

If one is talking about this aspect, about feelings, then it is impossible to completely avoid the topic of the creative work of Vadim Sidur himself. He is an extremely interesting and talented artist and poet. Sidur is an avant-gardist. For me, for example, his work is profoundly alien, like the work of other artists who embodied in artistic form and spewed into public space their own physiological fantasies, their own psychological problems, and sometime even pathology. I can say the very same words, for example, about the Shemyakin "Deformities" that were set up in Bolotna Square.

 

Does Sidur's creativity evoke any internal emotional conflicts? It does. Both in his sculpture and in his poetry. His verses about a Christmas party or about some physiological phenomena of his favorite woman, for example, disturb me. However one should not forget that Sidur was an avant-gardist. He worked in a specific genre, fashionable at the time. And all avant-gardism is based on provocation; it is neither good nor bad; it just is what it is.

 

Somebody, explaining this trend, says that it is useful because it forces one to think, while somebody says it is harmful because it evokes dour feelings, although nobody denies its provocativeness. Remove from avant-gardism its provocativeness and it is destroyed, nullified, and ceases to exist.

 

But any provocation is aimed at this—at the evocation of emotions, at the evocation of a response. Evoke this yourself, and be ready for these responses to arise. That's the way this art is.

 

At the same time Sidur—it is necessary to give him credit—was a talented man. Many current artists, imitating Sidur, try to use the same mechanism—provocativeness, placing on display certain shocking installations and then complaining that the cossacks in hats did not come and smash their exhibit, because in this case nobody knew about it. However, as Academician Alexander Panchenko once said to me long ago, "talented scabrousness and untalented scabrousness are still scabrousness."

 

Now specifically about the actions of the organization God's Will. One should not respond to provocation with provocation, because you achieve nothing by this. Generally to any challenge a Christian must respond, speaking in contemporary language, asymmetrically. Christ conducted himself "asymmetrically." He did not act according to the logic of the king of the Jews nor according to the logic of the leader of the national liberation movement. According to all contemporary notions he should have behaved differently. And in principle, all reaction of Christianity to the world is asymmetrical.

 

If you respond to provocation with provocation, you are confronting the commission of evil—in your understanding of evil—in the same way, then actually you will fall into a trap. In responding in such a way to provocative avant-garde art, they are themselves acting like avant-gardists and they fall into the goal of this action. It is exactly the same avant-garde "performance" as actually the art of Sidur itself.

 

It is all the same as being in a confined space, like a caged squirrel on a wheel—it runs and runs all the time and there is no way out of it. This is the paradox of the whole situation. Of course, in Sidur's work there is an element of blasphemy, and I have already talked about it. But this does not mean that it is necessary to break and crush and act with avant-garde, revolutionary methods. This is always a fruitless task. It makes no sense to use the method of the "new savagery" of the avant-garde for defending tradition. Tradition and the "new savagery" are incompatible.

 

At the same time, do those who come to the Manezh have a right to any form of their own expression? Of course, they do. And probably they even have the right to a public defense of their position. But I repeat: this should be done in a "different" form, without copying that against which you are displeased.

 

As a response to the action of God's Will these days one has been able to hear condemnation of an "Orthodox ISIL" [Islamic State of Iraq and Levant], although this comparison is completely incorrect. In this case, the style of God's Will coincides with the conduct of Femen, the group Voina, or Pussy Riot, who work in a postmodernist vein and the style of the avant-garde. This is all their element. And the leader of God's Will, actually, operates in the same space. In this sense he is their prisoner. They, and not he, are setting the agenda. And thus he is fated to lose. They are manipulating him and he does not see it at all and does not feel it. Sooner or later he will realize this and then he will be able to find some other forms of defense of his own worldview, which will be more effective.

 

And there is one other thing that I would like to say. In one of the television news broadcasts I saw a report of what happened in the Manezh. The voice of the journalist behind the video reported that the front-line soldier Vadim Sidur was an extremely talented artist, and that his work, devoted to the Great Patriotic War, is very strong, unlike the work on the war of the sculptor Vuchetich. This exaltation of Sidur through denigrating Vuchetich outraged me.

 

Evgeny Vuchetich was a most talented "Russian Serb," a most talented sculptor, who created outstanding monuments dedicated to the Great Patriotic War, if one recalls just the "War Liberator" in Berlin. Vuchetich was the creator of the first in the USSR monument of a hero of the Great Patriotic War, which he began making in 1944 and which was then erected in Viazma. This is the monument to Commander Mikhail Efremov. Vuchetich himself fought in the significant 33rd army of Efremov, and he was one of 800 soldiers who managed to break out of encirclement.

 

Actually, why oppose artists of various trends? Why after their deaths oppose two front-line soldiers who worthily fulfilled their duty? Why say boorish words about the remarkable Russian sculptor Vuchetich? What is behind this? Behind this I see nothing other than an enormous worldview conflict between diverse understanding of life, between diverse attitudes on history and on the culture of your country.

 

And God's Will's opposition to the organizers of the exhibit in the Manezh bears primarily all of this same worldview character. Behind this opposition lurk profound worldview disagreements, each of which strives to define the contours of the future direction of Russia. And if we want to seriously understand what is happening, we cannot turn away from this aspect. We cannot simply say: "disgrace," "hooliganism," "Orthodox ISIL," and considered the topic exhausted. (tr. by PDS, posted 17 August 2015)


Russia Religion News Current News Items

Editorial disclaimer: RRN does not intend to certify the accuracy of information presented in articles. RRN simply intends to certify the accuracy of the English translation of the contents of the articles as they appeared in news media of countries of the former USSR.

If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication from which it came. It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL, http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.