|
|
|
Interview in the magazine "Russian Journal"
13 January 2004
Russian Journal: How is the Hermitage getting along in the present
economic situation, which is not an easy one for culture? Although it
is called a ‘state’ museum, when you announce your budget figures it appears
that almost one third consists of money which the Hermitage earns independently.
Moreover, sponsors have come into your life who help organize exhibitions,
buy art objects for you, etc.
Mikhail Piotrovsky: You can hardly call Shchukin and Morozov sponsors.
They were collectors who bought paintings on the assumption that the artists
would become great in the future. And the share of sponsors in our budget
is not so large; the biggest share is what the Hermitage itself has generated.
Sponsors also enter into our budget under this entry. They sometimes come
to us on their own, but they do so in a context that the Hermitage itself
has created: it is attractive for sponsors. Their share, as I say, is
not big. What is much larger is the money which we ourselves earn by forcing
people to pay for entrance tickets, for licenses, etc. Right now one movie
company will pay for what they filmed in the Hermitage, otherwise we would
sue them. When we do an exhibition abroad, we insist on being paid a compensation
as if they were paying Western specialists. If we arrange an exhibition
here in the museum, we do it free of charge. We truly generate half of
our budget: the state is in nÞ position to pay for all of the needs of
the Hermitage and not just our needs: it cannot pay for the needs of others
as well. Even France has now given freedom to some of its largest museums:
the state cannot support them at 100%. Until recently they supported their
museums fully at state expense and, accordingly, did not grant them any
freedom. That is to say the Louvre turned over all its receipts to the
Ministry of Culture of France and it divided it up: something for the
Louvre, something to others. But with an eye to us they got upset and
began to demand their freedom. And they got it.
RJ: At one of your press conferences you spoke about how leaders in
the cultural sphere are worried by the attempt of the state to control
their income from sources outside the state budget, to control the money
the cultural institutions earn independently.
M.P. That is a different issue. The state is in no position to support
cultural institutions, therefore we should earn money independently. But
this is not because it is in the nature of museums to do so. We earn money
because otherwise the museum cannot exist. There was a time when the state
rather disrespectfully threw culture out on the waves of freedom and practically
reneged on its obligations for the upkeep of culture. But we have availed
ourselves of the proper aspects and vitality of museums generally so that
we were able to extricate ourselves from this situation and find means
outside the state budget that allow us to survive. State subsidies are
increasing but not by much. The fact that the second half of our budget
belongs wholly to the museum means that we are constantly growing (just
about to the limit) the sphere in which we can earn money on our own.
When it became evident that we were achieving success, that elicited irritation
among some. As we all know, success breeds irritation among the neighbors
especially among those who expected that for many years we would be down
on our knees begging for money. From the state. And what exactly is the
state? It is a highway robber with a big stick.
RJ: Please explain.
M.P.: The social sciences teach us that this is the basic function of
the state. It takes from people what they produce or create, what they
own, and then should give them back something in return while observing
some kind of rules and maintaining order in the country. It is like the
customs administration: they stand on the road and demand that you pay
up.
R.J.: As far as I know, you are a rather well connected statesman…
M.P.: Of course.
R.J.: You are a member of the Presidential Council on Culture, of
the Commission on State Prizes and in general according to sociological
surveys you are one of the most influential people in the sphere of culture.
Have you really been able to influence something in the sphere of the
state cultural policy?
M.P.: I don’t think that I can exert a big influence on state policy,
even in the sphere of culture. State policy is a complicated matter. And
the authorities also have their own interests in the sphere of culture.
But what I try to do, like all my colleagues, is to create a clear picture
of the role of the state in the field of culture. After deciding that
we were not necessary for it and turning us over to the mercy of fate,
the state now saw that we ‘stayed afloat’. As the result of a certain
degree of freedom some money began to appear and with it came the possibility
of an independent existence outside the subsidies of the state. In this
situation a big temptation arises to take away the money that we learned
how to earn and the possibilities that appeared before us. This is where
the discussion begins on how all our income is part of the state budget.
That is incorrect from a moral point of view: the budget money exists
to preserve culture and transmit it from generation to generation. The
state has no other tasks. Well, yes to help the poor and defend the state
borders – that’s it. Therefore it is morally false to say that everything
which culture earns is part of the revenues of the state budget..But the
next stage of this thinking is still worse: that the earnings of those
who work for the cultural institutions should be treated as an expense
of the state budget. That is to say, the more you earn for the museum,
the less the state should give you. This is very dangerous, because even
without such complications we are just barely managing to stay on the
cultural path and not descend into pure commercialism: to put the accent
on the right things as cultural institutions should. And many of us do
not succeed in this. That is quite bad. Then we become commercial and
forget the main thing, strictly speaking the very reason why we exist.
Regardless of how much money we earn or how many fancy ceremonies we arrange,
the main thing is to educate the next generation. After all culture is
what distinguishes man from man. It is the collective memory of generations
that is not inherited. It is assimilated only through teaching, through
things, objects, books. This is exactly what museums are in involved with;
and what they try to give people during all their life. The fight to make
this understood is precisely what our participation in state policy-making
relating to culture is all about. We all are trying – and it is not just
me – to say this loudly enough to be heard. We enter into various conflicts
not just once or twice. I think that our position should inspire respect
towards people of culture and alter the view of them as poor folks, forgotten
creatures who should be grateful for any ‘alms’. I often say that we are
not begging and no one is helping us; rather, they are collaborating with
us, if they are outsiders, or they are fulfilling their duty, if it is
the state. We can ask someone who is entirely outside our sphere: “Won’t
you please buy this painting for us?”
RJ: Are you speaking about the story of Vladimir Potanin’s purchase
of the “Black Square” by Malevich for the Hermitage?
M.P.: No, that was a different situation. In that case we discussed together
beforehand how the painting might be purchased. We have a genuine partnership
with Interros. With respect to the state, we don’t ask, we demand. We
demand that they give us money for this or something else when we cannot
continue to exist without that. Demands may be formulated in different
ways, but it all comes to the same thing – a demand. For leaders in the
field of culture it is very important that we not feel ourselves to be
poor relations, especially in the milieu of statesmen. We stand at the
very top of what the state, the country, and the nation can take pride
in. By ‘we’ I mean not we as individuals but as the cultural institutions
which exist in Russia. Not only the objects that are in a museum but the
Hermitage itself is a manifestation of Russian history and culture. I
think this is the correct position to take. Of course it may evoke in
many people a certain disagreement, but for the most part it will elicit
respect.
R.J.: Do you personally associate with Vladimir Putin at the Presidential
councils?
M.P.: Yes, of course.
R.J. : Do you try to convince him of anything?
M.P.: Well I cannot say that I associate with him in the sense that we
sit together and the whole time I am trying to persuade him of something.
I simply try to explain something.
RJ: How are these council meetings held? To be sure the President
is not bringing together a large number of people who are not laggards
in the field of culture just for his own pleasure…
M.P.: I have to say that Vladimir Putin attentively listens to everyone
who is a member of the Presidential Council. It may be that at the start
he delivers a speech which others have prepared for him, but then he makes
his own notes, reacts in a lively way to everything that is being said,
and he pronounces a closing speech that follows from his own ideas. He
‘soaks up’ everything he has heard and then it is his own personal decision
which becomes the guideline for actions. Putin is not the sort of person
who can be easily convinced or persuaded.
RJ: Can you give us a concrete example of how some conflict relating
to cultural policy was resolved in the Presidential Council?
M.P.: This doesn’t happen in Presidential Councils. There are various
ways of acting. One of them is wider use of press contacts. We had several
situations when government directives came out which practically deprived
us of the possibility of using our non-state money, especially money coming
from sponsors or donors, which meant that all these channels of financing
culture would be completely interrupted. And we persistently and openly
discussed all the issues both with the government and with the press.
These issues were removed, the directives were changed, then they were
given a push ‘from the side’ and wound up in laws. After several years.
But after several years the situation has also changed. The Presidential
Council is something different. It doesn’t meet often. Its task is not
to make decisions but to present to the President the most complete picture
possible of all the problems that exist and prod the adoption of ‘big’
decisions. I think the ‘small’ decisions are taken in other ways.
RJ: What do you mean by ‘big’ decisions?
M.P.: Here again it is not decisions but discussions. We are all somewhat
‘stuck’ on bureaucratic procedures: adopted, issued directives, etc. For
example, at one of the first Council meetings we discussed the problems
of culture at the level of children and the participation of the state
in stimulating the creation of a literature for children. This is precisely
what has collapsed here into a mess of debris because it is an area which
requires state assistance and monitoring to see that everyone has fulfilled
his obligations. Of course, no revolution took place. All the same the
best books for children are now being written in the West. Although there
is the question of what to make of Harry Potter. I think that there will
be a big change, we also will one day see good children’s books being
written here. Well before this Council meeting it was reckoned that practically
none of the television broadcasting companies fulfill their obligations
as set down in all contracts with respect to providing a certain amount
of air time for children’s programs. We were asked not to direct too much
attention to this at the Council and so we only mentioned this problem
in passing. Then the Ministry of Information and the Press made its checks
and corrected the situation. That is how things happen. Or at a previous
Council meeting we discussed an important question: unresolved relations
between the state and free artists. State orders or freedom? Everyone
wants to be free, but at the same time to get money from the state. It
is quite clear that some criteria should exist. There are things which
the state needs and it is prepared to make available a lot of money for
a contract someone will get and carry out. Should it be on a short leash
as was the case during the Soviet period? There are things in which the
state should not poke its nose, but then the artist has no right to expect
anything from the state. He can work on the market or without the market;
he can create something eternal or work to please the crowds. There is
also the social sphere around some very important things where there is
no money to be made whatsoever but where the state should help without
asking anything for itself in return. I have in mind to a significant
degree museums, libraries, schools, art for children. That is a social
pact in which we all understood the rules of the game (as it was in Soviet
times). We haven’t reached that stage yet.
RJ: Do you have in mind the Law on Culture?
M.P.: Besides a Law there should be some sort of social pact with rules
that everyone understands. During the Soviet period we had separate laws,
a ‘heavy’ system of all sorts of prohibitions, but the rules of the game
were pretty clear: if you do one thing, you are encouraged; if you do
something else you end up in a prison camp. Now there is no such precise
system: on the one hand the state is offended over what should not give
offense since it does nothing whatsoever in this sphere – and it’s a good
thing it doesn’t interfere- and on the other hand culture is offended
by the fact that the state doesn’t help it or gives it very little. These
are issues which are being discussed and gradually are taking shape, including
legislative shape.
RJ: What do you think of the Law on Sponsorship?
M.P.: We are struggling with this all the time. I consider that no Law
on Sponsorship is needed. You can’t ‘ram it through’. It is long and complicated.
No matter what, everyone will suspect that the sponsors are engaged in
money laundering. What is needed is a small and quiet addition to the
Tax Code giving proper privileges to those who donate money to good causes.
That’s all. It should be easier to achieve, though still it is difficult.
But a broadly waged battle over the Law on Sponsorship has all the same
lÕd to nothing.
RJ: Maybe it is easier to make additions to an old Code than to pass
a new Law, but all the same nothing has been achieved so far.
M.P.: Yes and we ought not to have achieved anything. As soon as the intelligentsia
starts to achieve something, it turns out badly. Research staff should
not lead the state. Historical experience demonstrates that. We should
expose the problem, find ways of discussing it and pushing it forward.
This is only part of the problem as you understand. It seems to me that
we could reach a bit more understanding of the problem but nothing can
be achieved at once. Moreover, understanding should be two-sided: both
for the President and for those who converse with him. The next important
Presidential Council meeting was the one relating to UNESCO. We set the
task for ourselves: how can Russia, a country that has preserved its culture,
be a donor to UNESCO? Not expect something from UNESCO. There is nothing
to hope for from UNESCO. This international bureaucratic organization
is in crisis and we can still give it a nudge and pull it out of the crisis.
Not long ago the Americans returned there, and they also can assist it.
And so what can Russia , drawing on its new experience, offer to UNESCO
aside from the fact that we have great monuments? We proposed a full set
of things that can be turned into good and interesting initiatives: a
full collection of computer catalogues of what we have, so that people
might know about not only Pushkin, Dostoevsky and the Moscow Kremlin but
also about many other monuments. Plus our huge sphere of experience of
surviving in market conditions, saving or not saving ‘face’ in these conditions.
In the West everyone lives under market conditions, but there the market
is ‘mild’ and most of the world does not know yet how to combine the great
mission of culture with what it takes to exist when money is always in
short supply. The experience of Russia’s twenty-year struggle for survival
can be used in the CIS, in Europe, and in the whole world. Moreover, this
is exactly what we are now doing in the project called “Hermitage-UNESCO”:
we are now at the stage when we are reporting to specialists from other
countries at various seminars and symposia about everything we have ourselves
learned and are now able to do.
RJ: Was the draft “Declaration of the Rights of Culture” also born
out of the joint work with UNESCO?
M.P.: No, it existed before that, but it began to be especially promoted
(and not only by me) in connection with the war in Iraq: it became clear
that in our civilization there is no understanding that culture also has
rights apart from the rights of man. We even came to understand what was
still not understood until quite recently. It is something that is not
self-evident: that man has a whole assortment of rights which are presently
recognized. The rights of a man contradict the rights of the nation, someone
else’s rights, the rights of the state, etc. But we found a scheme in
which all of this exists and works. So it is with the rights of culture.
This can even be balanced against the rights of man. When man will come
to know that besides his own right to take and kill, let us say, someone
whom he doesn’t like…
RJ: But man does not have any such right.
M.P.: Yes, but let us assume that he does.
RJ: But how can that be in the Christian world in which people live
according to the ten commandments?
M.P.: Long ago we stopped living in accordance with the ten commandments.
It would be more correct to say we live according to the law of an eye
for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We have a lot of different commandments.
But if one country has the right to intervene in the policy of another
country arguing that over there they are violating the rights of different
groups of people, then a culture of ancient civilizations like Iraq’s,
which is a sort of DNA of our culture, also has rights of its own. And
whatever all the rights of man may be, you cannot just destroy monuments
of culture. This is no easy dilemma: do you bomb a cathedral if an enemy
machine-gunner is sitting in it? In the course of the Second World War
this question was resolved variously. In some cases they bombed, in other
cases they didn’t. It often depended on the man who took the decision.
And there were no easy decisions. Something should counterbalance the
situation. I think the scheme which has been proclaimed can work. The
sign of the Red Cross or Red Crescent signifies that people must not be
bombed, though this is not always respected. In addition there can be
a sign of Roerich, three red circles, signifying that the monument should
not be destroyed. As an extension of these traditions the Declaration
of the Rights of Culture emerged. Some things should be in the blood of
every man in a civilized society. There are things which must not be done
because they can harm culture, harm the cultural DNA of our civilization,
and not just harm one person taken separately. Declarations as such are
not much. A lot has to be done in the area of lawmaking and in psychology.
Jurists, for example, say that man can be the subject of a law but not
cultures. That is correct, but upon more profound reflection it appears
to be not entirely true.
RJ: What then is the solution?
M.P.: A group of legal experts in Geneva is now trying to resolve this
juridical conundrum. There is always a solution to any situation if you
look for it. This is creative work.
RJ: Is it true that the friendly relations between the Hermitage and
Interros began with the purchase of Malevich’s “Black Square”?
M.P.: No, they began with a small program of publications that were no
less important in their own way than the purchase of Malevich’s ‘Black
Square”. We brought back to life the periodical publication (formerly
it was a magazine) called “The Christian East”, one of the best research
publications that ever existed in Russia. It is once again one of the
best. Every article is published in the language of the author using alphabets
and scripts ranging from Greek to ancient Egyptian and so forth. With
help from Interros we began to publish archive materials of the museum,
the series entitled “Pages from the History of the Hermitage”. A volume
of notes from the post-revolutionary Scholarly Councils of the Hermitage
has come out. We are now preparing a volume of archival materials dealing
with the sale of collections from the Hermitage during Soviet times. Gradually
we have found other ways to cooperate: Interros has become our main partner
in developing the plan for the Greater Hermitage, in particular, in reconstructing
the East Wing of the General Staff building. It became the sponsor of
a whole series of restoration work on art objects and reconstruction of
premises. The Hermitage’s exhibition “Under the Sign of the Eagle” was
partly paid for by their money and the operations office for the project
was created with their assistance. Interros acts as our financial consultant
on the project of the Greater Hermitage. It paid half the cost of renovating
the Triumphal Arch; the other half was paid by the Hermitage itself. That
took one million dollars from them and a like amount from us. Interros
acts as unpaid consultant on the project now being prepared for reconstruction
of the East Wing of the General Staff building, helping us with the implementation
of the realtor’s and commercial aspects. It was also our consultant on
the setting up of our ties with the Guggenheim Museum. Moreover, it was
precisely due to their counsel that we were able to earn enough money
to carry out our restoration plan in time for the 300th anniversary of
the city. Thanks to the fact that we properly concluded contracts and
agreements. We always work together. And somewhere in the middle of our
collaboration there was that purchase of Malevich’s “Black Square”. Interros
knew very well the whole situation surrounding the banks, the bankruptcies,
the collections…At first we just talked about it, but then we decided
to try to get this painting for the Hermitage. A good and holy deed. And
in the end it all worked out well.
RJ: Did you have to convince Vladimir Potanin of the necessity for
this purchase?
M.P.: No, I didn’t have to persuade him. We meet from time to time and
propose to each other a whole set of different projects that we could
do together. He has his and I have mine. In the summer, for example, Interros
had the general idea of staging a knock-out exhibition in Paris. They
invited us to take part. We agreed and began to take part “in the Hermitage
way”: we “invested” in it a lot more intellectual input and art objects
from the museum than we had imagined in the beginning. Now a version of
this exhibition is being displayed in the Hermitage. Discussions are held:
we say what we would find useful and interesting; they say what is interesting
for them. Then we choose the points where our interests coincide. From
these meetings the idea of a Board of Trustees for the Hermitage was born.
The idea belonged to the head of Interros, Vladimir Potanin. He said,
“If you wish to oblige me to help you all the time, then you have to obligate
me formally. You need to create a Board of Trustees in which there will
be not only me but also other members whom I will press to give money
for the development of the Hermitage.” After that we began to develop
the idea: the cooperation of private capital with a state institution.
This is one of the main problems facing world culture generally at the
given moment. In the world today we see the ongoing creation of a multitude
of organizations in the sphere of culture that are both private and non-private.
They work variously and there are different opinions on what can be gained
from them. But our Board of Trustees is an example of how ministers and
business people work together and decide the future of the museum, confirm
its budget, find financial resources for it, and then check to see that
the budget is implemented properly.
RJ: Are you acting as pioneers in organizing an organization with
this sort of collaboration between state and private structures or has
this type of situation already become typical for Russia?
M.P.: I think that this situation is typical for Russian culture. We are,
of course, pioneers in everything. In the given instance in a situation
that is typical for Russian museums, we are experimenting with things
which are applicable to the museum field. For example with the help of
our Dutch friends we are now preparing a computer program to inventory
the museum’s treasures. We have taken the most popular programs existing
in the West and we are now making a Russian version which meets all the
demands of the Ministry of Culture of Russia. Next, when this program
is ready, it will be acceptable for any other Russian museum. The experience
of our Board of Trustees will possibly become an example for other museums
in Russia. Everyone is creating one sort of supervisory board or another.
But it is important to create a working board which will not take command
of the museum, but rather ensure its partial financing and create conditions
for its development. That is not so easy to do. Even in the West it does
not succeed everywhere or with everyone.
RJ: How did you form your board? So you have Vladimir Potanin and
he is a member, even the chairman of the Board of Trustees. But Oleg Deripaska
also is a sponsor of the Hermitage and for some reason he is not on the
board.
M.P.: Sponsorship and trusteeship are completely different things. The
members of our Board of Trustees are firstly two ministers – Mikhail Shvydkoi
and Alexei Kudrin; secondly Lord Rothschild, who heads the development
fund of the Hermitage and the Hermitage Rooms in England; thirdly Hans
Ulrich Maerke, the Chairman of IBM Europe, Africa and the Middle East
(we have a major project with IBM); fourthly John Russell, the major Western
art critic. We have just begun our collaboration with Oleg Deripaska:
we have a joint project of Hermitage exhibitions in Siberia together with
his company Bazovy Element (Basic Element). We would like to put our collections
on display and the company wishes to look good in a region where it has
its economic interests. This is the initial stage of collaboration. Perhaps
in the future Deripaska will one day become a member of our Board of Trustees.
This does not occur automatically.
RJ: As far as I know, Mikhail Khodorkovsky was and remains a member
of the Hermitage’s Board of Trustees…
M.P.: Yes, and we have not excluded him, because as yet there are no grounds
for doing so. The situation with Mikhail Khodorkovsky is very vexing for
the Hermitage. He only just became a member of the Board of Trustees.
There were bright prospects. We agreed about much to come, but now… YUKOS
was one of the main sponsors of the Hermitage Rooms in London. It financed
one of our big London exhibitions at a time when we could not find the
money for it. We actively tried to persuade YUKOS to invest money in exhibitions
in Russia as well. The company practically saved our exhibition in Lipetsk
in a situation where the local factories did not want to support its staging.
A whole group of common programs led in end to his membership on our Board
of Trustees and to prospects for the financing projects for the Greater
Hermitage which now cannot be carried out for material reasons: for the
moment we cannot meet with him to discuss the prospects for developing
the Hermitage. Although I think that the problems will be sorted out and
things will be arranged. In principle this is the correct way.
RJ: What was the result of the situation surrounding the transfer
to Germany of the Baldin Collection?
M.P.: Till now there has been no outcome. The proper solution along lines
of a compromise was not brought to broad public attention in time and
so when rumors and talk about the transfer to Germany spread, there was
such an outcry among the uninformed public that the process was halted
so as to avoid creating a situation of conflict out of what was a completely
normal transaction.
RJ: And why in your opinion did this scandal come about?
M.P.: Everything was decided properly. The Baldin Collection is not covered
by the law on transferred valuables and therefore it cannot automatically
become Russian state property as happened to many of the private collections
from Germany that are now in the Hermitage and according to the law are
the property of Russia. This collection was exported illegally – which
has no bearing on the fact that Baldin virtually saved it. Still de jure
it was exported illegally. Given the presence of good will it can be returned.
I think that for this to happen there has to be a decision by the State
Duma though it can also be returned on the basis of a decision of the
Russian Government. Of course, that is no simple thing. We achieved an
agreement about a compromise: if the collection is returned to Germany
then 20 of the best items, very important to the Hermitage, would remain
in Russia. This part of the understanding was not communicated either
to the broad or even to a limited part of society. I think that if the
details of the hand-over had been properly announced, then there would
have been no disputes, none of the talk that this was a sell-out or anything
of that sort. But the very principle of adopting a compromise solution
that satisfied both sides was correct. I think that all these questions
can be resolved calmly only when there is a compromise: something goes
to Germany and something stays in Russia. Then everyone is satisfied:
we keep what we need and Germany gets what it has to have to exist. There
are things which are very important for national self-awareness, then
there are other things which may be interesting but are not essential.
Such were the stained glass windows from the Marienkirche in Frankfurt-am-Oder
which were given back to Germany by a decision of the State Duma. For
Germany these are holy things, the oldest stained glass windows of one
of the oldest churches, from the start of German culture; but for us they
are simply something pretty that, aside from all else, we cannot find
the time to display. In Russia we simply do not have any rooms of the
right size. It is always possible to find compromises if you want to demonstrate
good will and not make scandals. Unfortunately, in situations like this
there are too many people standing by, looking and waiting for a scandal
to break – both in Russia and in Germany.
RJ: And so as a result of the scandal nothing was ever transferred
anywhere?
M.P.: Yes, nothing was transferred anywhere, but nothing was ever exhibited
anywhere either. Nothing good came out of this. The question remains unresolved.
It is an open sore. There is always someone to stir up the public, and
no solution to the problem can be found. Although we can distinguish between
general problems and little problems – they should all be publicly discussed.
And I think that the solution that was found after we spent a lot of time
was quite respectable and normal. Of course in the sphere of culture,
if not in the sphere of politics.
RJ: Can you give us a statistical portrait of an average visitor to
the Hermitage?
M.P.: A female citizen of Russia aged between 30 and 40 . Approximately
75% of the visitors are citizens of Russia, among whom women predominate.
Notwithstanding that we try to receive as many young people and children
as we can. Over a year’s time we have around 500 000 children and students
from institutions of higher learning.
RJ: On the basis of these figures can we reach a conclusion regarding
the basic function of a museum in contemporary society, namely that it
is educational?
¼.P: Yes, the basic function of a museum is educational and assisting
the upbringing of children. We are all working for them.
A more detailed account of the interview which Director of the State
Hermitage Mikhail Piotrovsky gave to the “Russian Journal” may be found
on the magazine’s website: www.russ.ru/culture/20040113_piotr.html
|
