Chechel Natalya Vasilievna Biography

The liquidation was successful "see. This was an interview with the former head of the applied sociology sector and work with the youth of the Russian Museum of Marina Potapova. It makes sense to return to the topic raised in that material because Marina Vasilievna came a response from the Ministry of Culture. The answer is typical of this department - false, unchanged and not containing answers to the questions that were asked.

All the most important problems raised by M. Potapova were completely ignored. Given the constant interest of the editorial office of the magazine "City" in the problems of the Russian Museum and feasible participation in their decision, we decided to publish the entire epistolary and asked Marina Vasilievna to comment on it. Since the year, classes have been regularly held in the Russian Museum on the methodology of free discussion with university students, mainly inhumanitarian profile, which, according to sociological surveys, are mostly interested in art and do not visit art museums.

Thanks to the special methodology in such classes, the participants in the discussion are actively involved in the process of discussing the work of art, freely express their impressions and opinions. This form of work with youth aims to awaken a living interest in art, and such a goal is achieved in the vast majority of cases, as evidenced by the assessments of the teachers and the reviews of the students themselves.

The initiative of this activity belongs to the employees of the sector of applied sociology and work with youth, who were engaged in the organization and conduct of classes.

However, the leadership of the Russian Museum made every effort to block this work, and these efforts were successful. The sector broke up, some of the employees went to other departments, and others completely quit. But why is the work, which was in direct accordance with the mission of the museum, with the museum development strategy and attracting a new youth audience, was ruined?

The arguments of the leadership regarding optimization, financial inefficiency seemed clearly insolvent. And then I, as the former head of the sector of applied sociology and work with youth on October 3, wrote an appeal to the president see. Appendix 1. From the presidential administration, the appeal was sent to the Ministry of Culture, and from there on October 20, the director of the Russian Museum with a request to “objectively and comprehensively consider this appeal and send information to the Department of Museums and External Relations”, see Appendix 2.

And, we get this information - the answer dated November 3 of the Ministry of Culture, see Appendix 3. This answer deserves the right to be posted in the public space. Of course, after the futile attempts of dialogue with the leadership of the Russian Museum, we assumed that the answer could be the most common, uncertain or leading away from the essence of the question.

But still he struck us, because it contains an absolute lie. It literally says that the museum is already enough work with students, namely, “classes with students of non -humanitarian departments have been conducted in the State Russian Museum since the beginning of the 10ths, the project“ Faculty of Public Professions ”and others. And after all, such a museum project has not been and has never been!

The Faculty of Public Professions of the FOP is this structure of the university, but not the project of the museum. Indeed, since the beginning of the 10ths, the Russian Museum has participated in the work of such faculties, the best specialists have lectured in almost all non -humanitarian universities of the city along with employees from other museums. I myself took part in this work.

And in the Russian Museum, a discussion club was even organized for all interested students and meetings with artists were held. It was a social institution, born of the needs of the Soviet era, designed to contribute to the preparation of the future Soviet intelligentsia, the development of creative abilities, the formation of artistic culture, aesthetic views and tastes of student youth.

By the beginning of the 10ths, this institution breaks up and working with FOPs stops in the Russian Museum. Currently, fopes work only in some universities. The absolutely false information received by the Ministry of Culture from the Administration of the Russian Museum is stunning and, confessed, causes difficult feelings ... However, obviously, the ministry suits. What they thought, writing these lines, because this information is easy to verify to anyone who wants it.

Where is it placed? It is not anywhere, neither on the museum’s website, nor in museum plans and reports no one heard about such a job, because it simply does not exist. The Ministry of Culture is absolutely uncritically, blindly repeats false information received from the Russian Museum, simply performing the automatic function of transmitting information from one point to another. But we will continue.

Mediation participants are high school students and students of St. Petersburg universities. ” But in this project - only the first experiments, and it is not aimed at the youth audience, only a few mediation classes have been held from the year, the participants of which were different people. Information about these classes was posted on the Internet and those who wish could sign up in advance.True, during this period there was the only attempt to direct work with students when a group of students began to train to conduct mediation classes at the Alexander III exhibition.

But the experience was not completed, interrupted by Pandemia. The student club of the Russian Museum is called “new, modern forms of work”. But this is not a new form of work, it has existed since the year, the club is visited by approximately a person. These are guys who are interested in art and, in particular, Russian art. Whereas the sector of applied sociology and work with youth worked with a wide student audience, with those who were not previously interested in art, providing them with the opportunity to gain new experience with art and arousing interest in it.

At least a person a year came to our classes and every year they were new students who, incidentally, paid for it! The museum has no innovative projects for working with a student audience and, it seems, they are not interested in anyone in the museum. The document compiled by the administration of the Russian Museum as an answer to the Ministry of Culture contains false information.

But the essence of the appeal to the president remained unanswered, this document does not indicate the grounds on which the work of the sector of applied sociology and work with youth was destroyed. The Russian Museum reports that "the definition of specific formats of work with youth is completely in the competence of the institution." So what are the criteria for determining these formats?

This is not a word. And the fact that three sector employees were forced to go to other departments is presented as a very positive result of the efforts of the leadership: “Currently, out of five people who worked in the applied sociology sector, three continue to work in the museum, and two in the same unit”! This is an obvious fraud. Marina Potapova afterword Mikhail Zolotonosova to answer from the Ministry of Culture I cannot help but make some comments.

Firstly, I, unlike Marina Vasilievna Potapova, are not at all surprised by the lies that the Ministry of Culture reported from the State Russian Museum. This is the style of communication between the leadership of the Russian Museum in the person of various characters with everyone - from, so to speak, individuals to their own founder - the Ministry of Culture and specifically the Department of Museums and External Relations.

If I begin to give specific examples, you will get a separate large article. By the way, there is no order for the liquidation of the sector of applied sociology and work with youth in the timing. The employee of the personnel department of the museum told M. Potapova that they did not receive any orders on this subject. As a result, the sector “works” as part of one person who is given the task of helping in the work of social networks, while insisting on the seat of this employee behind the information persistent, explaining where the toilet is.

Probably, in the Russian Museum they are simply afraid to issue an order, because almost immediately after the interview in the timing, a letter from the Ministry of Culture came. Secondly, I am not at all surprised by the fact that the officials of the ministry-in this case, L. Kolesnikova, the compiler of this letter, and Natalya Vasilievna Chechel, the deputy director of the Department of Museums and Foreign Relations, first ask the Director General of the Russian Museum “Comprehensively and objectively to consider this appeal and send information to the Department of Museums and Foreign Relations”.

They receive an answer from the general director, they do not analyze it, unconditionally believe each word, not wanting to doubt anything, and as a result they send a false response from the Russian museum to the applicant, that is, Potapova. To check whether they really sent from the Russian Museum to the Ministry of Culture not an unsubscription, but the answers to Potapova questions - this was not even occurred to anyone in the indicated department!

As a result, Potapova complained to the President of the Russian Federation of the leadership of the Russian Museum, his unsatisfactory work, and answered her with this complaint with a arrogant and false unsubscribing the very leadership of the Russian museum. And the Ministry of Culture, in the person of the aforementioned Chechel, became just a transfer link. The ministerial official, as I understand it, did not accept any participation in the formation of the answer, although in a letter Potapova from the answer, on the merits, there is just not.

But there is a carousel, the meaning of which is that the answer to the complaint is the one who complains about. Perhaps the answer was built by subordinates to the aforementioned Tsvetkova - deputy general director of the timing. Or she herself. By the way, according to the anti -corruption declaration for the year, Chechel received an income of 2 rubles.

In general, with such a relatively modest income, one could expect from her a more meaningful and not such a false answer. Thirdly, I cannot but pay attention to the final paragraph of the letter signed by Chechel, which concerns the department of art frames and historical museum equipment. Allegedly, "this issue is closed." Nothing like that!I studied in detail the problem of art frames in the timing, prepared three large material equipped with documents and photographs on this topic, whose authenticity no one had challenged, and therefore I can confidently say that the collection of art frames in the timing has more objects, during January to November, only about the frames were put on museum accounting.

This, according to Chechel, means that “the question is closed”? Yes, the question has not even opened yet! Because the largest, most unresolved and unsuccessful problem is that the museum is still near the most valuable frames of the XVIII-XX centuries. It will fit there, at best, still frames. I learned that the timing administration seemed to allocate a premises in the Farm pavilion, built according to the project of A.

Voronikhin in Terlevo. Large frames will go there, which are currently composed, like firewood, in the basement of the Mikhailovsky Palace. However, it is obvious that this will not happen soon, because before sending them should be restored, and the restorers in the timing are overloaded with current exhibition work. The administration also allocated another room for the frames - and again in the basement of the Mikhailovsky castle.

And it is obvious that it is impossible to store works of art of the museum assembly in the basements. It is clear that Chechel does not give a damn about all this, including the instructions of the ministry in which it works; She does not want to delve into the details from her dizzying administrative heights, as she does not want to remember that the same Tsvetkova transferred almost all the frames to economic records with an assessment of one ruble, equating them to the mops, shovels and chairs.

Here are such disappointing remarks, I must make a letter from Mikhail Zolotonosov a letter from M. Potapova to the President of the Russian Federation V. Putin dated October 3, I, Potapova Marina Vasilievna, a pensioner, is forced to turn to you for help in resolving the problems related to the leadership of the State Russian Museum. For 48 years, I worked in the Russian Museum and was forced to quit, of my own free will from the post of head of the sector of applied sociology and work with youth in July this year, due to the fact that the leadership of the museum created conditions under which it became impossible to continue the priority direction of the sector - classes with university students.