|
|
|
|
|
|
|
   Cult and Culture Mikhail Piotrovsky: "Culture exists to teach complicated people, living in a complex society" Mikhail Borisovich Piotrovsky is one of the leading figures in Russian culture. A doctor in history, professor, and General Director of The State Hermitage Museum since 1992, a Corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and a Full member of the Russian Academy of Art. Furthermore, he is Chairman of the Union of Museums in Russia, President of the Worldwide Club of St. Petersburg, an Editor-in-chief of the Khristiansky Vostok journal, Chairmaï of the Board of Trustees of the European University in St. Petersburg. Like all cultural leaders in Russia, Mikhail Piotrovsky knows Pskov well. He has visited Pskov Region many times. Thus meeting with him occurred in St. Petersburg at The State Hermitage Museum, and the reason was quite urgent – the events connected with the transfer of the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin at Snetogorsk Monastery, which has 14th century frescoes to the monastery for liturgical purposes [1]. Of course, the conversation could not be confined to a single subject, and turned out to be quite broad in the topics covered. The publication offers readers the conversation between Pskovskaya Guberniya Editor-in-chief Lev SHLOSBERG with The State Hermitage Museum General Director Mikhail PIOTROVSKY. "People are taking their turns at the chess board but there are no discussions" Lev Shlosberg – Two years ago a loud discussion was held in Russian society, which to this day has not been concluded on the relationship between culture, museums, and the Church in connection with the a federal bill which has now been passed as legislation "On the Transfer to Religious Organisations Property which has Religious Purposes, held as Government or Municipal Property ". This law added new dynamics into the relationship between the authorities and the Church and between the authorities and museums [2]. It is almost two years since the law was passed. How do you respond to it? – It is good that the law was to some extent limited, and it hasn’t affected museums much, but there is constant debate about applying it to museums. I believe that the law has not created an environment where we can peacefully work together, it created an environment for some sort of peaceful co-existence. Parallel to the passing of the law a special committee was established for the restoration of religious items which are to be transferred to the Church. This committee has made it possible to restore a large number of items which would never have been restored. And this is a benefit of the law. At the same time, only religious items are being restored, the others are ignored. This law creates some assertiveness to the process, it is backed financially and creates the feeling that in general everything could be done using a properly laid out programme that is not as bad as it could be. So far this law hasn’t resolved anything else. And there is no understanding within society that religious items also are art. And this is not a problem with the law. I am no fan of laws. I understand that laws are made by people, broken by people and that people change. Essentially what is important is what stands behind the law. And so far there is no understanding that cult and culture are different things. – The law aggravated discussion about what is more important, culture or religion? – I don’t believe there was any real aggravation. The law really didn’t resolve anything. It didn’t resolve the discussion. To be honest at present there isn’t any such discussion, people are taking their turns at the chess board but there are no discussions. For example, take the Pskov Cathedral of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin of the Snetogorsk Monastery, the State Historical Museum, Novodevichy Convent – these are already chess games, not discussions. The concepts of cult and culture are different but they must exist together. The issue is that there are two sides. Culture and cult are part of the spiritual life of our nation, it is our cultural legacy and it is only together that we can create a functional state. And on the other hand, cults come and go. And when a cult changes ideology or is changed by ideology, then the only way of saving the cultural heritage is included in those items of art and to transfer them to museums. There is no other option. The Christians destroyed ancient monuments, and in order to save them it was necessary that an appreciation for art appeared so that museums collected these items. Protestants destroyed Catholic monuments, the French Revolution destroyed the monuments of the previous era, and to some extent the Louvre became a museum in order to save the monuments being destroyed. The Russian Revolution destroyed monuments and only museums preserved them. It is the natural order of things. You should always think about it. It is a heretical idea to think that the next time we won’t preserve icons in the museum since there is such a reaction from the Church against the museum. Once they brought the icons here by the cartful, we simply took them to save them. It took a long time to describe them, write up inventories. We registered everything, took everything, because it needed to be saved. And saved they were. But if there is now such a relationship to museums, then next time, we won’t take them. We are currently living under the attack of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is to say that theoretically things could work out in different ways. The Church has something to think about. At the moment there is no understanding of the important role that culture has already played, keeping religious monuments in its sphere. To this point these monuments remain strictly religious items. They have not been included within the category of art. It is necessary to clearly understand that they have been torn out of the context of art. But when they are thought of as art, and if you are to take a global perspective, they are preserved and take on new functions. It is this concept that people have yet to understand. There is no understanding even of elementary things: that a list of icons used for ceremonial purposes is just as valuable and even more valuable than a genuine old icon [3]. This is all happening because, unfortunately, in addition to cult and culture there is also financial value. The word value has come to mean financial value but what of cultural value? But again we hear: and how much is it worth in dollars? We are having problems with our own mentality and with society’s self awareness because these are also cultural issues. Because culture does not only exist for some reason, it exists to teach complex people, living in a complicated environment. We have neither society, nor complex people, everything seems to be eroding, everything is becoming simpler and simpler. And this is a problem which culture can not deal with alone and which could be dealt with together with the Church because a good church also needs complex people. "It is absolutely clear: this cathedral needs to be refurbished and then used or preserved. And they won’t preserve it" – Why isn’t it working out together? It looks like the right environment has been established. – So far not all the conditions are established. There are, firstly, some aspirations that are to be won back somehow, there is a feeling of offence, although revenge or compensation is completely inappropriate, unintelligible things, and for the Church they just shouldn’t exist, but we see that there are such things. In my view, around the Russian Orthodox Church there are many things occurring that are not quite right. The situation could play out with different results. A whole series of things are being done which can only harm the Church. Doubtless, the transfer of the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin is a typical example of a decision which undermines the authority of the Church. Because it is absolutely clear: this cathedral needs to be refurbished and then used or preserved. And they won’t preserve it. This place should be kept only in the most rigid museum conditions like the Last Super of Leonardo da Vinci: 20 people should enter, then a length of time, and only then should someone else enter. The plan is absolutely clear. And when such property is demanded and then transferred by hammer and tongs, then it not only undermines the authority of the Church in general but also the authority of sensible people within the Church, who there are without a doubt, and probably undermines them more. – Why is it that in the majority of these conflicts the secular authorities support religious organisations and not the side of the state museums which protect cultural items? – It’s due to illiteracy. Excuse me, but the Church has the language to talk to the illiterate. And the museums have no language. You see, the Christian church from the very beginning was aimed at the illiterate. It uses the feelings and the illiterate person can understand something of it. But the museum is not aimed at the illiterate. I always like to quote the director of The State Hermitage Museum, Dmitry Tolstoy, who said: “There is no need to run excursions here, they do not hold courses on literacy at a library!” Nonetheless, the complete lack of understanding of what a museum is,
is disheartening. For us a museum is some form of relaxation and a way
of making money from tourists. Museums preserve the memory, the habits, science and creations of a cultural product, which can be used as a form of entertainment, and for tourism, if people become accustomed to the idea of it as recreation. – The things which are happening now with museums as institutions for protecting and developing culture, has this reached the point of stagnation or crisis? – It is neither a stagnation nor a crisis in my opinion. Because in Russia we are constantly in a state of crisis, especially given what we went through 20 years ago. That was a crisis, and for the museums it was also a crisis. Now I think it is a struggle rather like a tug-of-war or a chess game, and sometimes a game of poker. There is no tragedy, but everything is pretty bad because there is no understanding of what to do further down the track so that culture has become more on the level of religion, but has not been turned into a church. The establishment of culture should not become the establishment of something akin to the church, the Orthodox Christian Church where there is a hierarchy. In culture there should be no hierarchy but rather, autonomy, but not autonomy in the primitive sense. We have a law on the autonomy of establishments and it is all rubbish. We talk about the need for autonomy and they give us a law with autonomy... – Take it and work with it... – Yes, take it and work with it. There, that’s autonomy for you, and that’s your freedom too. But we need a different type of autonomy – we need the ability to make responsible decisions. There is so much misunderstanding, but I think that slowly, step by step we are changing this. "We don’t have a government, what we have is a governmental structure" – Why is it that in a situation where there is social conflict, we could even say crisis, when cultural values can become values that unite people as a whole, the government places culture as the lowest priority in terms of government policy, budget, and status of people working in culture, providing for them and making it possible for them to carry out their professional activities? It’s said that they are saviours, help them and they will save the nation. – This is our tragedy, which is explained only by the fact that we do not have a government, what we have is a governmental structure. We are used to looking at the government in Soviet terms, that it is the master of everything, to be precise, the government is all of us. But now we don’t have a government, but there is a government structure, which distributes money, carries out specific functions related to government, but this structure has its own level for understanding the problem. It’s easier for them, they are the simplest of people, they don’t need complexity. And culture – it’s complicated. – Do they deliberately avoid complicated areas? – I think it’s not entirely conscious, but in theory it’s hard for them to deal with complicated situations. And culture is complicated. You need to use resources so that culture works for you. And leisure works for you by itself, you can take the children and wife somewhere, and make money from tourism too. For that reason there is such a mania around tourism at the moment [4]. While culture is education, and what’s more, it is unending education, which it ought to be in the 21st century. It is the creation of an environment which can stimulate creativity, and stimulate innovation. Culture is a situation where two times two equals five and not four. Two times two is not always four and culture teaches that there can be different options. It is difficult for a particular section of the public to understand this, and most importantly of all it is difficult “to implement in business”. Although, to be honest, to be honest it is one of the state’s most powerful weapons. If we remember our history, then leaders, a wide variety of them both good and bad, understood how to use culture in a powerful way. And now there is a feeling that they don’t want to use it. – There is a Ministry of Culture for the Russian Federation, there are regional ministries for culture, state committees, board of trustees. It seems like people with specific needs and interests would go there, and would be able to understand the complexities and the needs of this area of life. Along with them is the huge harm caused to cultural affairs, cultural establishments, cultural workers from government bodies: ministries, departments, committees, boards. Isn’t this a paradox? – Firstly one of the reasons is the idea of management, that managers can do everything. It’s like party workers during the Soviet Union – they could work everywhere. And now there is such a feeling that every civil servant can work in any field, and people no longer think that it is necessary to know that area where there are working. It doesn’t occur to them to spend two weeks reading books as it used to be done and as it should be done. On the other hand, there is this management on the part of the government structures, beginning with the Ministry of Culture. We had an administrative overhaul starting with good and appropriate things but nothing came of it, because they also left all the unnecessary things in the governmental structure. Plainly speaking, we don’t need a Ministry of Culture. We need an establishment which pumps out the appropriate laws, we need an establishment which distributes money and doesn’t get involved in some form of politics within the culture, and we need an establishment which rigidly supervises the money and transfer of cultural and artistic objects etc. We need three establishments like this, which should include an agreement with museums stating what they will do for us and what we should do for them – that’s all. And then we have autonomy. But after the reforms, when we formed the federal cultural agency, we were left with the Ministry of Culture which was unclear as to its role. The agency focused on money, Rosokhrankultura was founded, which was a wonderful idea for an establishment. We held such hopes in this and they took it over and destroyed it. And now everything has again been returned to the Ministry of Culture. There has been an increase in bureaucratisation, an increase in petty minded meddling, which is mindless and unnecessary. And a clear understanding of the boundaries for supervision and autonomy are absent. This again leads us to the point that we do not have a government but a governmental structure. The governmental structure must understand its limitations, including its bureaucratic limitations. We must have faith in our cultural organisations, in their ability to exist. It’s been a difficult 20 years, but of them for 15 years we knew that we would make the decisions, and assumed that this must be the case, and there was no need to read anything into this. Now the bureaucracy is slowly growing up round us, for every little detail we need to give permission, permission, permission. Let every insignificant official grant his permissions! The worst thing about it is it leads to the bureaucratisation of cultural establishments. Now we also produce such a large amount of paper, each day is like an endless stream of paper. I myself even tell our workers: write your memoranda. It’s a bad influence. Although, how do you find an appropriate system between freedom and regulation, I don’t know, but, probably, there should be a correctly formulated government policy, specifically a policy, and not some selection of regulation from a governmental structure which is needed by the structure. "People’s main and only religion is the ancestral cult" – Museums recently have been removed from the system of children’s education. Yes, there are excursions, some traditions remain, museum teachers do in practice exist, but their resources are practically not required. The school programmes are loosing their regional component in particular for history and culture, people no longer know about where they live. Why has this system broken down? – It’s broken down because we have started to think less about it. At present there are museum teachers at school level, here we need only an interest, but at university level there’s absolutely nothing. I have already mentioned that the 21st century is the century of ceaseless education, and museums will provide it. I think that here there is a reasonable solution, it’s already clear: it is distance education and lectures. Lectures are already delivered on television, people are delivering lectures everywhere. Not only here in Russia but around the world this is happening. And people listen to them, take pleasure in listening to them, although sometimes you get some sort of rubbish. But the genre of broad, public lectures is growing and it is not only growing among students. At the moment as we discuss The State Hermitage Museum website we are thinking to what extent we can run some type of distance educational programme with lectures and interactive elements – even simply having good lectures, for good people, in good locations. We can talk endless about people’s declining interest in culture and museums, but it is necessary to interest people with something new. Considering that we now have the internet and there are people who consider it convenient to sit down and watch it, then we must do something. – Respect towards the cultured population is respect for our roots. What makes people feel the need to learn about their roots? It’s not even how you relate to past generations, it’s the attraction towards the irrational. It is impossible to say what your descendents have literally done for the production of art. Sometimes it is a feeling that the roots have slept for a long time within people and suddenly they awaken. What do you think is the process of arousing these feelings within people? – For some time this feeling was driven inside, but, in theory, roots are people’s religion. People’s main and only religion is the ancestral cult. Museums, first and foremost, are an institution for the ancestral cult. That is its main function. It rests in blood, because our ancestors are within us. There is also such a concept as the achievements of our ancestors. It is present in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. These achievements have enabled us to live. It is a concept that we should be thankful to our ancestors, and that I myself am worthy because of the merit of my forefathers. This rests in the human psyche because it distinguishes us from animals. This is not genetic. It is all culture and not the genetic memory of previous generations, but instilled. Culture is the result of these services, so that we can learn them and master them. They could be the achievements of my ancestors, those of a people, or a country. People have an internal need to know it. People seek where they come from, what they come from, and in this way it is possible to understand yourself or contrarily reject everything. – I would like to return to the influence of personality on the preservation of culture. Under Alexandr II in 1859 the Imperial Archaeological Commission was established, in 1861 – the Moscow Society for Ancient Rus Art, in 1864 – the Moscow Imperial Archaeological Society, in its wake many regional archaeological societies were founded, including the Pskov society (1880), in 1872 – the Church-Archaeological Society attached to the Kiev Spiritual Academy, as a result of a new approach, already under Nicholas II in the final decade of the 19th century there was a huge number of church-archaeological commissions established in the eparchies. Essentially these were governmental-social establishments for the preservation of our cultural heritage. A huge wave developed and was achieved. The results were significant. Many cultural monuments were saved, and the cultural education of the clergy was organised. Who should implement such a wave now in order to save our cultural heritage, including issues involving culture and the Church? Who should show this independence? – The emperor. Things are bad without an emperor (laughter). Nothing is achieved simply by laws. Our laws are quite sufficient. The mass education of cultured people has not been achieved, it has been going on for a long time, and it is too little. We need to increase education of a small group of people who are responsible for culture. We need to return to an effective mechanism for Rosokhrankultura, set up this department with the appropriate powers, because with your own eyes you see what is occurring, especially with archaeological monuments. Monuments need to be protected, those who destroy them should be arrested and punished. You cannot put your faith on the will of the president or the government. – A rather fatalistic question. In your opinion do you think that as a nation, as a culture that we have passed the point of no return with regard to non-material values, in the understanding of cultural values, humanitarian values and the value of spiritual development? – I do not think that we have passed that point. There are no points of no return. Culture won’t run off somewhere. We are people and people without culture cannot survive. All the same humanity has not become so wild that we have ceased to have humanity. There are rises, falls, and descents and I think that there is a lot of good in our future, which we currently do not see. We need to talk more on this subject. Talking with Lev SHLOSBERG. |
||||
Copyright © 2011 State Hermitage Museum |
