Source: returns to the topic of the scandalous decision of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation to put Irina Alexandrovna Antonova, the outstanding heroine of the entire museum world, in place of the director of the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Elizaveta Likhacheva, a person with a very interesting biography, was appointed director.

A logical question arises - how could an ordinary employee who came to the Museum after his dismissal from the FMS and received an art historian's education in absentia at almost 40 years old be able to make such a dizzying career? For what merits can one be appointed to the position of director of a federal museum? What feats do you need to accomplish in order to lead the legendary Pushkinsky?

The source of the telegram channel of the Cheka OGPU and traced an interesting connection. The head of the PIK company, Gordeev, donated to the state his part of the ownership rights (50%) to the legendary architectural monument Melnikov's House on the condition that it become a branch of the State Museum of Architecture. A.V. Shchusev, about which a corresponding order was issued in 2014 signed by the Minister of Culture V.R. Medinsky.

It is surprising that the lawyers of the Ministry of Culture endorsed the issuance of this order in relation to the monument, the ownership of which was the subject of a long-term dispute, unresolved to this day. Melnikov's granddaughter, E.V. Karinskaya, lived in the House, the legal owner of 1/8 of the rights to the House, along with the entire "hereditary estate" and with the corresponding registration. Her father, V.K. Melnikov, bequeathed the House to the state on the terms of creating a state museum there. Karinskaya, the "responsible executor of the will", interfered with the start of work on the museumification of the monument, the plan of which had already been approved by the Ministry of Culture, which, as a result, decided to evict her. An ordinary employee of the branch, Elizaveta Likhacheva, volunteered to fulfill the order, morally impossible and dubious from a legal point of view. Prior to joining the museum, she served in the Federal Migration Service, but was fired for forging a diploma of her higher education and fraud on the department’s website. Likhacheva slammed the door and changed the lock when Karinskaya went out for a smoke. The cultural community accused the museum of raiding. Karinskaya began litigation with the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, which continues to this day.


The Melnikov House, in the status of a branch of the Museum of Architecture, turned out to be one hundred percent financially dependent on S.E. Gordeev, since it is illegal to open funding for its maintenance from the federal budget, in the absence of a 100 percent ownership of the monument by the state. Using this lever, Gordeev dictated his terms, in particular, he announced that Likhacheva, who had "cleaned up the object" and would continue to deal with it. He also demanded that the private security company recommended by him be involved in the protection of the House, the services of which were paid for by the PIK Company.

According to a source, regular signals began that there were “left” commercial excursions and drinking bouts organized by Likhacheva in the House. To improve the situation, an administrative resource was included: resubordination of the branch directly to the director of the museum I.M. Korobina and the announcement of a number of reprimands by Likhacheva with entry in a personal file. In response, the private security company guarding the Melnikov House blocked the access of the museum staff there, referring to Gordeev's instruction to obey only Likhacheva. After the museum's contract with the private security company was terminated, several cars with armed mercenaries appeared near the Melnikov House. Minister Medinsky was officially informed "about the actions to remove the State Museum of K. and V. Melnikovs from state control." There was no reaction from his side.

In September 2016, Gordeev visited the Ministry of Culture. In the course of negotiations with Minister Medinsky, he signed off to the Ministry of Culture the Zhenovach Theater on the street. Stanislavsky, as eyewitnesses say, in exchange for the Talyzins' estate, where since 1946 a museum of architecture has been acquired. In addition, a sponsorship contribution was transferred from the PIK company in support of the Russian Military Historical Society. The agreement included a plan for the construction of a new museum building on the periphery of the capital by the PIK company and the gradual release of the estate near the Kremlin walls from the museum function.


To implement the plan, a “right director” was needed, who would sign the necessary documents and go to any lengths for the sake of a high position and opportunities. Gordeev's choice fell on the marginal Likhacheva, eager to become a boss. She had already established herself in his eyes by "cleansing" the Melnikov House. Korobina was forced to leave by an unscheduled "check" by the KRO of the Ministry of Culture. Noting the obvious tendentiousness of her results, the lawyers who advised the director did not support her intention to go to court, which "will not be interested in the truth, but only in the interpretation." At the end of December 2016, Korobina wrote in a statement “of her own free will”: “I consider the actions of the Ministry of Culture disastrous for the museum, the poetI relieve myself of responsibility for his future.” According to the testimony of the architects who came to the Ministry of Culture to petition for the preservation of the director who pulled the museum out of the disaster, they were told in plain text: “Everyone agreed, she must leave. If he resists, we'll put him in jail."

To be continued

Timofey Grishin