The case unfolding in the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St. Petersburg centers on the Erarta Museum of Contemporary Art and a painting titled Festival that remains on public display. The scene depicted features dancers in traditional folk costumes performing on a stage, alongside three men in business attire. The caption beneath the image reads LIVE BELARUS. Investigators later tied the caption to a sensitive historical symbol, noting references to the 13th Belarusian Police Battalion of the Schutzstaffel and the 30th Grenadier Division of the Waffen-SS, paired with a Nazi salute. Officials have begun examining the painting for potential propaganda or the public display of Nazi paraphernalia in violation of relevant local laws, triggering a formal review under criminal procedures that govern such displays and symbols [citation].
A formal protocol has been issued under the first part of Article 20.3 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offenses, which addresses the public display or promotion of Nazi symbols. The case materials have been forwarded to the presiding judge for consideration, initiating a legal process that could lead to further action depending on the ruling and any accompanying evidence presented at trial [citation].
Earlier reporting noted that a government ministry in Belarus had equated the slogan Long Live Belarus with the Nazi slogan Heil Hitler, a development that adds geopolitical nuance to debates about the artwork and its exhibition. Additional context about these connections can be found in independent coverage examining how slogans with controversial histories are interpreted in different jurisdictions [citation].
In a related development, information emerged about the removal of works associated with the Mitkov movement from a major art venue in St. Petersburg. The artist known as Mitkov’s founder, referred to in sources as Dmitry Shagin, was reported to have disappeared from the venue, and a painting titled Mitki 91, created in the early 1990s, was subsequently withdrawn. The canvas is connected to events from the late Soviet era, notably the August coup that year in Moscow, and its withdrawal has been framed by observers as part of a broader reassessment of the artist’s work within public spaces [citation].
Questions have circulated about whether the removal of Shagin’s name from display materials at the Manege was the result of formal complaints or internal reviews. This has fed into ongoing discussions about how museums and galleries curate politically charged works and how such actions are interpreted by the public and the media. The situation continues to reflect broader tensions between art, memory, and public commentary in the contemporary cultural landscape [citation].