In the spring of 2010, the Louvre, the largest museum of France, held an exhibition of Russian art that became the most prominent event of the Year of Russia in France. The exhibition was put on a list of official matters and the presidents of both countries opened it in a formal ceremony. The visitors could see in the Louvre’s halls a refined selection of objects of the highest artistic level, an elaborate conception of the exposition’s plan, an excellent design, and a great respect for Russian culture. It took several years for Dr Jannic Durand, a specialist in Byzantine art and Louvre’s curator, and Director Henri Leyrotte to prepare the exhibition. 300 objects from 37 museums and libraries from all around the world, including 26 depositories from Russia, were put on display. It should be emphasized that the main part of the exhibition included the articles of the high artistic level, often the masterpieces. The extensive exhibition catalogue contained numerous essays on the history and art of Old Russia in different chronological periods, written by the Russian and French art historians. The catalogue entries describing the objects were done mainly by the specialists from the museums and libraries where the objects are kept. It gave an opportunity to the general public and those foreign professionals who do not know Russian to familiarize themselves with opinions of Russian specialists on some specific issues of Old Russian art. Translations into French were done skillfully and with respect to the original authors’ texts, though some truncations and stylistic editing were unavoidable, taking into account the difference in traditions of French and Russian academic schools and distinctions in mentality of French public.

In this article, the author tried to give a virtual tour around the exhibition’s halls in the Louvre, drawing the readers’ attention to the special ways in the displaying the objects, the reasons behind the objects’ selection, and their effect in the exposition space. Special attention is paid to the result (quite often, an unexpected one even for the organizers of the exhibition themselves) reached by the arrangement of the objects in the halls and showcases, their comparison, lighting, and successful design. In some cases, the article explains the motivations behind the selection of the art works that are connected to the ways Old Russian art is perceived by the European public and their interpretation of Russian history. The author is trying to explain not only the ideas that the French organizers of the exhibition wished to reveal in the exhibition halls but also the result of it, and why this result had, in fact, the enormous success among the different categories of visitors.

A very important effect of the Louvre exhibition was the breaking out of a number of stereotypes held toward Old Russian art, its relationships with Byzantine art, for example; the existence of a large number of regional painting schools with specific, apprehensible features; the high level of Russian art not only during the “time of Andrei Rublev” but also in the previous and following it centuries. The difficult work done by the Louvre during the preparation of this exhibition gave a grand result and, undoubtedly, opened a new era in the study of Old Russian art in the West.

The Louvre exhibition made such a great impression on the President of Russia and his envoy that it was decided to show it to the Russian public. Indeed, when the show in Paris ended and the objects returned back home, the exhibition was organized in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. However, it was not the same exhibition as the one in Paris. The Russian “specialists” and museum functionaries made their own, “true”, conception in exposing the Old Russian materials. Unfortunately, in both scholarly and exposition ways it happened to be very unprofessional, and possessed that which is commonly defined as “bad taste”. Even more unfortunate was the situation with the exhibition catalogue. On the account of its scholarly content, the catalogue was turned into an abridged edition and was designed in the pompous style of coffee table books. Although a significant amount of money was spent on all these efforts, and the bureaucrats from culture were satisfied, it should be admitted that the result was rather sad for the Russian public and for Russian art history as a scholarly discipline.

List of illustrations.
Fig. 1. Presidents of Russia and France at “Holy Russia” during the tour led by Jannic Durand, the curator of the exhibition.
Fig. 2. The banner of the “Holy Russia” exhibition on the building of the Louvre
Fig. 3. Model of Smolny Convent of the Resurrection in St Petersburg by F-B Rastrelli that “greeted” the visitors of the “Holy Russia” exhibition in the Louvre.
Fig. 4. “St Boris and Gleb”, the Novgorod icon of the 14th century chosen as the emblem of the Louvre exhibition. Fig. 5. The Polovets “baba” of the 12th century and showcases with archaeological artifacts of pre-Christian Russia. Fig. 6. “Deisis” from the city of Vladimir, end of the 12th century
Fig. 7. The Old Russian icons, end of the 12th-13th centuries.
Fig. 8. The Novgorod section of the “Holy Russia” exhibition.
Fig. 9. The Novgorod icons at the “Holy Russia” exhibition.
Fig. 10. Icon “John the Forerunner” from the Vasil’ev Deisus attributed to Andrei Rublev.
Fig. 11. The “Icon Hall” with icons from the iconostases of the St. Cyril-Belozersk Monastery.
Fig. 12. The showcase with provincial “northern” monuments of Old Russia.
Fig. 13. “The King and the Patriarch” – the portrait apposition of two rules of Russia of the 17th century.
Fig. 14. The hall of the 17th century with decorative tiles.
Fig. 15. “Christ Pantocrator Enthroned”, 1703 – the final accord of the “Holy Russia” exhibition at the Louvre.