.jpg)
Host: Good morning. Well, not a "good" morning, of course, but...
Marat Guelman: Yes, far from a good one.
Host: Marat, do you have any theories? Because, as everyone has surely read by now and you are likely aware, Semyon Skripetsky had reported receiving threats and had even published some of them. Do you consider this murder to be political?
Guelman: Well, it is obviously political. It is clear that caricature, by its very nature, is a genre designed to offend those it depicts. On top of that, Semyon utilized what we might call Russian prison humor, which—within the context of these specific Russian tones—made it even more humiliating for them. I think we can only speculate on one thing: was this an act of personal vendetta by one of the characters he depicted, or was it a decision made by the security services? Personally, I believe it could be either. We have to wait for the investigation.
But while we wait for the investigation, the debate itself is highly vital—specifically, the discussion about the fact that art can be offensive. Moreover, caricature cannot avoid being offensive. And the person being offended—whether it’s a Jew depicted with an exaggerated nose, or a Chechen forced onto his knees—has to endure it. If you are a public figure, you will be the subject of insults. Therefore, what is important right now is simply to state that no matter what the art is like, killing someone over art, killing someone over a caricature, is absolutely unacceptable.
Host: Marat, we will talk a bit more about Skripetsky himself and his artistic style in a moment, but I want to link this murder to another story. A few months ago, we had the case of the sculptor Jacques Tilly from Germany. He was sentenced in absentia in Russia and, I believe, even put on a wanted list for creating giant caricature sculptures, also targeting Putin and Kadyrov, which are used in carnival processions. Of course, I am not equating an in-absentia sentence with a literal political assassination. But on the other hand, it raises a question: should artists, performance artists, and everyone involved in lampooning Putin realize that they might now be walking under a greater threat than even some Russian opposition leaders or journalists? I am deliberately asking this in a somewhat provocative way, but in this case, a painter was killed—assuming it was a political execution—and before that, an in-absentia sentence was handed down to another artist. It feels as though the Kremlin is completely losing its nerve and targeting those who mock it.
Guelman: Well, yes, you are right. Everyone is supposed to be afraid. That is the Kremlin's core principle. And this fear is meant not only for the artists who speak out, but even municipal mayors must be afraid. The overarching idea is that of the oprichnina—the notion that "oh, you think that since you are an artist and not a politician, you are free? No, we will put you in prison, we will kill you. You think that because you met with Putin yesterday, you are safe? No, we will target you anyway."
It is the concept of the oprichnina, the idea of keeping society in a state of absolute fear. For them, of course, it is crucial that the people who crossed the border do not assume that by leaving Putin’s physical jurisdiction, they have escaped his power. That is the message I read in this. They periodically refresh this message because we tend to forget that borders are actually quite porous.
For example, the Berlin Prosecutor’s Office specifically summoned me to discuss the reality that, unfortunately, I am not safe here. "Let’s think about what can be done." So, certain measures are undoubtedly being taken—at least by European authorities—to minimize the chances of a reprisal carried out on behalf of the Russian state on their territory. But on the whole, yes, intimidation is the Kremlin's entire strategy. They realized that propaganda doesn't really work, either domestically or abroad. And from their perspective, fear is a far more reliable method of controlling people.
When we talk about the risks, yes, the risk is always there. Art is a highly public activity. Of course, Skripetsky amplified his caricatures with social media reels. Caricatures of this type exist besides his work and are no less offensive, but in his case, because he utilized social media and new technologies, these reels reached the "client," so to speak. And it is exceptionally important that the investigation identifies not just some abstract "Kremlin," but the specific individuals who ordered the hit. The only way to combat this is to expose the instigator every single time and take appropriate measures.
Host: You mentioned that Skripetsky was indeed not the only one drawing caricatures in this style. It actually reminds me a bit of the style of Igor Ponochevny, the artist behind the Alyosha Stupin persona. What can we say about Skripetsky himself as a creator, as a person who staged actions with his art, and what his core message was? We are currently focused on him from the perspective of his criticism of Putin, Kadyrov, and so on. But people are already writing that he also criticized the Ukrainian authorities and was listed on the Myrotvorets website—although we periodically discuss on air that the criteria for being added there have become completely murky. Nonetheless, what can we say about Skripetsky as a creator?
Guelman: Well, caricature is fundamentally a newspaper genre; it is a drawing designed to be published in a magazine or a newspaper. But there is a group of artists in Russia who perceive caricature as a fine art genre—fine in the sense that they paint it with oil on canvas. The most famous of them is Vasily Kopeikin. On the whole, this is a circle of artists in St. Petersburg centered around the Svinoye Rylo (Pig's Snout) gallery, who paint these caricatures with varying degrees of sharpness.
If we look at his origins as an artist, I would say he belongs to that St. Petersburg Svinoye Rylo circle. But his specific addition was this mandatory criminal element—the Russian prison world, where a vast amount of insults are based on the concept of the "lowered" (opushchennye), meaning individuals subjected to sexual violence in prison. His work is full of this. I would say this was his primary hallmark.
The second hallmark is that he was a performance artist. He understood that perhaps his paintings, on their own, did not possess high artistic value, but he used them to stage performances. They served as a tool for him to market himself to society as a character. He wasn't just creating paintings; he was creating a persona—this naive artist who depicts his favorite characters, like Putin and Kadyrov. Honestly, without this performance aspect and these reels, this art is rather crude. In this sense, Igor Ponochevny is, of course, a far more witty person in terms of irony, and far more gifted artistically. But Skripetsky's branding of himself as an artist—putting on a specific hat, acting like a simple painter—was highly vital.
Host: Inevitably, one also thinks about how a person's death often draws far more attention to their work than would have occurred had they not been killed.
Guelman: He was hardly thinking of such an end for himself. He likely assumed that he was safe after all. That is precisely why I believe we shouldn't analyze it from that angle. The death of a human being is a monumental event. The murder of an artist is an extraordinary event, regardless of how sharp or talented his art was. The very notion that you can or should kill someone for moving a brush across a canvas is an idea we must uproot.
Of course, we all take risks. Each of us risks their life every single day, but that does not make a murderer any less of a murderer. Structurally speaking, if a beautiful woman risks being raped, the rapist is still a rapist. I think it is highly vital right now to uncover who ordered the hit: the security services, Kadyrov personally, or someone else. This must be made public and transparent. And if the killer is caught, it will be wonderful—provided they don't swap him for some foreigner yet again.
Host: Thank you. Marat Guelman, gallerist, was on the Breakfast Show. Thank you.
Guelman: Goodbye.
Host: Thank you very much.
