Moscow’s GES-2 House of Culture is again under scrutiny after a recent book fair, where appearances by Irina Prokhorova, Maya Kucherskaya, German Lukomnikov, Olga Sedakova and other participants were removed from the program at the last moment, while the publishers Individuum and Samokat withdrew shortly before the opening. Before that, one of the Telegram channels associated with Vladimir Solovyov attacked the event, calling it a “gathering of anti-Russian cultural figures.”
When GES-2 opened in late 2021, it was seen as perhaps the most ambitious new cultural institution in Russia. The project of the V–A–C Foundation, created by Leonid Mikhelson and led by Teresa Mavica, was built around the idea of an open space without a permanent display, combining exhibitions, theater, film, music, publishing, and educational programs. Admission was made free, and dialogue with visitors was declared a core value.
The foundation had built its reputation over many years: V–A–C promoted Russian contemporary art in Europe and the United States, staged dialogue-based exhibitions pairing Russian and Western artists, and ran youth programs. People in the professional community recall those projects as a rare Russian example of an environment where young participants were included in real research and curatorial work on equal terms.
Teresa Mavica viewed culture as a way of shaping the future and insisted that Russian art should not dissolve into a Western context but speak with it as an equal. That approach became the basis of GES-2 as a modern “house of culture,” designed for the joint production of meaning rather than top-down instruction.
Yet on December 28, 2021, Mavica left her post as V–A–C’s general director. After the start of the war against Ukraine, the institution’s basic concept became even less compatible with its environment: international ties narrowed, and the very idea of an open, pluralistic space became vulnerable under censorship. GES-2 chose a cautious line, unlike Garage, which openly opposed the war and suspended its exhibition activities.
Under new management, a shift linked to stronger influence from investor Leonid Mikhelson and the more pragmatic course of Artyom Bondarevsky, GES-2 became more compromise-driven both artistically and institutionally. At the same time, it continues to support artists, develop regional projects, run the Svody workshops, and maintain international ties outside the European direction. In 2024, annual attendance approached 1 million visitors.
In the author’s view, GES-2 now occupies an ambiguous position: the real institution exists amid restrictions, losses, and tactical concessions, yet it is still shadowed by the image of an unfulfilled utopia tied to Mavica’s original vision. That “ghost,” the article argues, remains a reminder of another model of Russia, one oriented toward dialogue, cultural influence, and civic solidarity.