|
|
|
|
|
|
|
   Harmony arises from Conflict
During a rain filled week the State Hermitage Museum held its traditional celebration Farewell to White Nights. We normally light the lamp in the museum courtyard in the presence of journalists involved with the State Hermitage Museum. This time the celebration was taken to the dam. The staff at the State Hermitage Museum live constantly expecting flooding. We have regular training on what to do should water levels rise in the Neva. Since the construction of the dam, flooding in the museum has been contained and water doesn’t reach the museum basements (knock a wood). It is clear that the dam works. It has become part of the St. Petersburg cityscape, a part of the mythology of the city. We grew up as it was being constructed. We remember the number of conversations about too many reeds growing in the gulf as a result of the water. Everyone thought that the dam would affect the environment. It became the centre of a conflict which started out about the environment and became one of politics. The construction was a symbol of the period of stagnation. The struggle against it was a sign of dissidence. Then the cessation of work as part of Perestroika, it seemed like the symbol of a new era. It is now clear that the dam is necessary. The damage which people warned that it could do has not eventuated. What we see now is a complicated engineering system of protective structures: water gates, channels, tunnel... Completely opposite to what was imagined by protesters. A natural question is whether they vainly interfered in someone else's business. No, it was not in vain. Let us imagine that there were no protestors, throughout the whole history of the construction. Today we would have repair facilities with old equipment and the system would no longer be able to be used - we would have to shut it down. Modern computer technology is easier to replace. Finally, we would have these huge towers destroying the view of the Gulf of Finland. One of the merits which both museum staff and journalists noticed was that the dam fits the landscape. It does not ruin the view of Kronstadt with its famous cathedral. Everything is harmonic. This is the result of a long and stubborn battle. Our city can look after itself. A normal, intelligent conflict is not fought to defeat our enemies in order to stop something completely. It is necessary so that various points of views collide to achieve a result. Material must be fought for. In the current case the battle has justified itself. I have already said that the concern for our cultural heritage is not always fashionable. It can have different aspects, often political. We recently had a meeting of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in St. Petersburg. As soon as it became known that St. Petersburg would not be discussed people lost interest in it. But it is worth knowing what is happening with the politicisation of the struggle to protect monuments. The chairwoman of the UNESCO Committee Eleonora Mitrofanova told me how the representative from Mali cried when the Islamic landmark architecture from the Middle Ages was destroyed. What had happened? In the north of Mali Islamic fundamentalists and purists had seized control. The UNESCO Committee had declared that the monuments in Mali were in danger. Literally, the very next day, people with pickaxes and jackhammers rushed to destroy the mausoleums of saints, whose worship many believe (and rightly) to be contrary to pure monotheism. We may recall the famous story of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan, which the Taliban destroyed. They were destroyed not because they contradict Islamic views, but because pilgrims visited them. Most importantly, UNESCO intended to give money to restore the statues. This caused outrage in Afghanistan: we have starving children, and money is being given to idols. In making decisions, we must bear in mind what kind of reaction they could cause. The meeting discussed a series of other situations, in my opinion, important points. One of them is connected with Bethlehem. Bethlehem is situated on the territory of the Palestinian Authority. Palestine is not an independent country, but accepted into UNESCO. Palestine demanded that the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem should be included in the list of Cultural Heritage. The church in operation was immediately included in the list of sites under threat. This looks like a form of accusation against Israeli authorities, which could not help but cause dissatisfaction. I recall the church in question had been captured by militants as it is located in a territory with political struggle and armed conflict. It’s hard to say whether UNESCO protection will help the landmark building to remain intact. This year’s cultural heritage list includes the Pearl Road in Bahrain. It’s an example that UNESCO supports tangible and intangible heritage. The Pearl Road is the story of how pearls are extracted. It consists of renovated quarters where fishermen, traders, and sailors all lived. Houses, craftsmen’s workshops, stores, music - all of it has been revived. We are also thinking about saving crafts and folk art. UNESCO protects all of this as intangible heritage. And at the same time UNESCO is a politicized organisation. The World Heritage Committee refused to go to Bahrain due to the fact that there is unrest, and UNESCO does not like unrest. There is political pressure. The Hermitage in response invited the Bahraini exhibition here. The representation of Bahrain as being part of UNESCO took place here at the State Hermitage Museum along with an exhibition. The same meeting of the Committee postponed the presentation of Kremlins of Russia cultural heritage application. When it comes to kremlins things are complicated. Their buildings have been built up and up. Moreover, the construction in the protected monument is prohibited. The exception is the revival of the mosque in the Kazan Kremlin. It has stood there before, UNESCO believes that nothing bad had happened. If you take a heritage kremlins from several cities, their description is as general and vague, as in St. Petersburg. We should be grateful to the people who had that description forwarded to UNESCO. Regarding the kremlins’ project we have been plainly told: the project will not go through. The nomination of St. Petersburg must be revised, and this should be discussed in detail. It is necessary to describe every urban landscape. Theoretical methods exist for this but when this is done by the Committee for State Supervision, Use and Protection of Historical and Cultural Landmarks there are not enough resources. We must think how to use public support and consider where best to direct it. The Club of Petersburgers is ready to describe individual ensembles, offering a kind of regulation. At the round table meetings of the Worldwide Club of Petersburgers, we discuss architectural successes and mistakes, regularly meet with builders and developers. Talking about how you can save the city, without preventing it to live and grow, while avoiding politicising heritage conservation. The State Hermitage Museum has prepared regulations for Palace Square. They have been adopted by the city government as an appendix to the order of the governor for holding celebrations. Celebrations are permitted on Palace Square with the approval of the State Hermitage Museum. Discussions are now being held about the governor passing a special resolution, which gives the document more weight. This is the process of creating laws and regulations. We must act slowly, we are in the middle of the journey. It is important to see the line beyond which the activity causes public resistance. In my opinion, the politicisation of speeches in defense of the Angleterre led to a restoration which was worse than it could have been. The Angleterre team tried to complete the restoration as quickly as it could. If you do not look for ways to properly protect our heritage, monuments will be torn down and rebuilt quickly. This is a well-known approach in politics by way of a fait accompli. It should be kept in mind that the destruction of monuments is part of big politics. There is a change of cultures. Christians destroyed ancient monuments, Byzantine iconoclasts destroyed icons, Protestant England and Holland destroyed Catholic sites. Not to mention how Indian monuments were destroyed in America. The French Revolution destroyed the monuments of the royal regime. Churches were not the only things destroyed. When they began to restore Versailles, it was hard to find furniture from that era in France. An entire cultural layer was destroyed. We curse our own revolution, but there are worse. In the State Hermitage Museum we have a carriage which has been a delight to many visitors. In France, they have few of them left. A decision of the Convention has survived directing the coronation carriage to be destroyed, and the pictures of the kings of France to be removed. The rest was burnt. The Russian Revolution destroyed the cultural heritage, which did not suit her. It is no surprise that we sometimes hear on TV "The Bolsheviks saved St. Petersburg because it is a western city." They destroyed the Orthodox churches in Moscow. There’s some truth in this. A struggle followed by purification. St. Petersburg was purified from the monuments, which the intellectuals who participated in the revolution did not like. This was an important ideological point. Again, the Soviet authorities preserved everything European in St. Petersburg. Bolshevism, in a way was the successor of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great for the Europeanisation of Russia. I must admit that St. Petersburg had previously done a better job on conservation project as compared to today. There was a fight but we have managed to reach an agreement. I think that now public must be properly organised. It cannot be organised by a municipal or regional committee, or the presidential administration. In this case, nothing good will happen. The maturity of the social movements is based on the belief in the rightness of a cause and excludes hysteria. While opposing something dialogue is important, it can be tough, but constructive. http://www.spbvedomosti.ru/article.htm?id=10290242@SV_Articles |
||||
Copyright © 2011 State Hermitage Museum |
