Crash of the authorised gallerythe Moscow gallery “ the House of Nashchokina “ have tried to expose on street. A theme sudebnog
Crash of the authorised gallery
the Moscow gallery “ the House of Nashchokina “ have tried to expose on street. A theme of a judicial sketch. But it is a question not so much of the ordinary property claim, how many about change of political and aesthetic preferences of the power.
the gallery Scenario
Six years ago Natalia Rjurikova has opened the gallery an exhibition of a drawing of Michael Shemjakina. Now she says that did not aspire to laurels galeristki, and simply wanted to find money for magazine “ Film scripts “. The ministry of culture could not allocate money for magazine, and here on gallery agreed.
alas, ministerial money and have not received. Deputy minister Michael Shvydkoj was ready to help, but against the ministerial device has acted.
- me began to dissuade, - remembers Rjurikova, - Leonid Bazhans from Management FROM asked: “ Whom do you want to expose? SHemjakina? Oh, what horror! Plavinsky? What nightmare! It is necessary to expose kontseptualov “. I have answered: “ It you expose kontsept, and I will expose this ` horror `, and everyone will be engaged in the business “. Bazhanov has told categorical “ is not present “.
Nevertheless the gallery has opened. In - the first, Natalia Rjurikova has found the powerful sponsor - bank “ Imperial “. And in - the second, it was helped by that her husband Dmitry Rjurikov was the adviser of the president for the international affairs, and many entered into a circle of its dialogue “ young reformers “. That here “ in - the first “ and that “ in - the second “ - to tell difficultly.
Rjurikova has quickly understood secular salon or political club, she wants to show what art: “ Art ` men of the sixties `, the artists, which all this time worked, but which here did not have personal exhibitions: neither at Krasnopevtseva, nor at Plavinsky, neither at Tselkova, nor at the Unknown person “.
to Say that “ the House of Nashchokina “ began to be engaged in opening “ unknown persons “ names, it is a little exaggerated. By 1993 when the gallery has been based, has already passed also noisy “ Moscow “ Sotheby ` s 1988 - go, and a huge retrospective show of the Soviet informal art “ Other art “ in Tretyakov gallery in 1991 - m. the Gallery was engaged in that is called on professional slenge “ promotion “ these artists - Michael Shemjakina, Oleg Tselkova, Dmitry Plavinsky, Ernest Neizvestnogo, Michael Shvartsmana and Yury Cooper. That is did by it personal exhibitions accompanied by catalogues (that important: for, as professionals speak, there is no catalogue - there was no also an exhibition).
Who happened the next six years at exhibitions in Vorotnikovsky, that remembers opening days of that time. An abundance “ betakamov “ competed to an abundance of VIP: from CNN to CBS, from Nainy Eltsinoj to Maria Chubays, from the minister of culture Evgenie Sidorov to the minister of cinema Armen Medvedev, from assistants to president Dmitry Rjurikova and George Satarov to artistic elite - Eldara Ryazanov, Bulata Okudzhavy, Vasily Aksenova and Andrey Voznesensky.
the Gallery got glory not only secular salon, but also political club. More precisely - a constant point rendez - vous, meeting places.
- I necessarily should invite acquaintances, people of cinema to presentation (after all as, gallery actually in edition “ Film scripts “) Naturally, people who surrounded my husband. Journalists from this have drawn the conclusions: “ Aha, any thin political intrigues here trudge. Something here occurs “.
Many connected successes of gallery with the governmental public. Natalia Rjurikova disagrees till now with it.
- speak “ governmental “ the gallery, well, maybe, because at us was Naina Iosifovna - Simply unknown moulded Yeltsin`s bust. And it was at an exhibition of Shemjakina - simply because Shemjakin then, so to say, came nearer to this family. So this all leisure reflexions. The yellow press with equal success can name gallery and “ governmental “ and “ presidential “ and “ jablokovoj “ (on this strange logic why also is not present - at us was also Javlinsky). But all it does not represent the facts. I suited exhibitions not for Kostikov`s Glory which I well know, not for Petrov, not for Shokhin who lives there and then nearby, and for artists and for public. My husband here can be adhered only to that thanks to his name I managed to open gallery. The sponsor names money not outright under though it is meant. It is important to it to come nearer to the higher authority. And at all the fact that it can receive from it something concrete and useful. By no means is not present. The magic of a name works. I consider that I successfully have used it, and it not a crime.
not Medvedev so Chubays
Despite secular successes, the gallery could not dispose of own building - the house where from the date of its basis magazine edition " settled down; Film scripts “. The rights to a private residence belonged to State cinema and have been given the producer and businessman Ismailu Tagi - back. In ninetieth it from the supplier of colours became an outstanding public figure of cinema life. Rjurikova cannot speak about it easy. She remembers, how Tagi - back by ten cars as a part of 40 persons has entered into a private residence and declared that it here the owner. But edition then was protected by presidential protection.
- when Tagi - back traded in carnations and has decided to be engaged in hire of the Soviet films, persons of no character from State cinema have met its appetites. And Medvedev Armen Nikolaevich has made then a choice in its advantage. And when I have asked Medvedev to provide to us calmness, he has told that it is not my house and it not in its forces.
but that was not in forces of State cinema and Medvedev, was able the State Property Committee and Chubays. A history monument - and “ the House of Nashchokina “ has been recognised by a monument - under the status belonged to the state. By means of Chubays the triple lease contract between edition, Tagi - back and the State Property Committee has been issued.
- When we concluded this contract, - remembers Rjurikova, - I have asked Chubays, whether it can give oral guarantees that all will be normal. And it has given them.
the salon is closed
the Situation has changed together with the price of a guarantee of Chubays. In the spring 1997 - go in resignation Dmitry Rjurikov has left. The Moskomimuschestvo has made to tenants the unambiguous proposal - to pass from - under state and State Property Committee guardianship under city guardianship.
Rjurikova has disagreed, but Tagi - back has agreed. And not only has agreed, but also has promised to restore the house to 200 - letiju Pushkin.
- I do not understand, in what actually dispute, - tells Tagi - back. - the house on Vorotnikovsky, 12, is my house, my property. Rjurikova goes on criminal channels. It its affairs. At me all is issued lawfully. Come and look at documents.
the court will understand documents and arguments of the parties. The small gallery has played an appreciable role - if not in art, in secular and political life. But now its place in Moscow is occupied, at new political elite - new halls and other artists. The elite exchanges bows in the New Arena at sculptures of Tsereteli.
On the Russian history it is known: this or that political epoch comes to an end - with it life of this or that salon or club comes to an end. Probably, similar occurs and now.
- If at me indeed was “ governmental “ the gallery, - tells Rjurikova, - I would expose Shilova and Glazunov. And then there would be turns to Majakovki, and all would be happy. The government - that it sees familiar faces and figurative art over which should not think, and I that such national glory and mad turns.
and it too the recipe. Now he is added to the arsenal - but already by other people.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ismail Tagi - back: you that think, I have gone down from mountains?
Hearings that I want to make any casino in “ the House of Nashchokina “ - simply delirium. I cannot make in a history monument changes or re-planning. If I wanted to make a casino, I would make it still about ten years ago. All for this purpose was. I was engaged in cinema, advanced it, paid. You that think, I have gone down from mountains? I on partijno - economic work since 23 years. I understand all.
the house on the Vorotnikovsky lane, 12, is my house, my property. Rjurikova goes on criminal channels. It its affairs. At me all is issued lawfully. Come and look at documents.
Rjurikova for the galleries has destroyed a historical monument, has made re-planning, has inserted conditioners (by the way who will pay them?) . And I to the middle of March need to make repair of all building in which there was our great poet Alexander Pushkin.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Natalia Rjurikova: I struggle with it as I can
Gallery will not be closed. A problem that at us can select a building. Already half a year we have legal proceedings with Tagi - back. He wants to seize a building, to construct here type of a casino or still something... I struggle with it as I can. But from that party there is big money.
Tagi - back became “ the proprietor “ house which is a monument of culture and under the law is not subject to privatisation. In - the second, it became the proprietor on the basis of the contract on purchase and sale which is not lawful. Seleznev (were then the head of department State cinema buildings) has written out to it this contract in 1989 when no privatisation yet existed. And here now Tagi - back has pulled out this naftalinnyj the contract and conducts on us a psychological attack, threatens to move, writes letters, brings an action. Also there is already a judgement about cancellation of the contract and our eviction. But we have submitted the appeal, and now there is a struggle of nerves, and it is a question of eviction terms.