The State Hermitage Museum: Information

Mikhail Piotrovsky on "Looking for Extremism at the State Hermitage Museum"
8 December 2012

Connected to the events following the press conference of Mikhail Piotrovsky about the Hermitage Days on 07.12.12., and information throughout the mass media that the State Hermitage Museum is being checked for extremism, the State Hermitage Museum would like to make the following announcement:

On St. Catherine's Day which we consider to be the anniversary of the State Hermitage Museum, I held a press conference where I discussed the results of the State Hermitage Museum's work this year. For the sake of curiosity and reflecting the extremely impoverished cultural level that exists in our country today, and also the derogatory mood of our society, I used the example of the Chapman brothers. The Chapman brothers are leading international artists whose famous work The End of Fun is on display at the State Hermitage Museum (the first exhibition in a museum).

The exhibition is very brutal, with an extremely anti-nationalistic character and rising from the tradition of the Final Judgment in international art . Of itself, it goes without saying that such an exhibition is far from being liked by all, but here we are talking about something different: the prosecutor for Leningrad city, excuse me, a slip of the tongue, but not an accidental slip, has received several dozen letters with almost identical text demanding that the State Hermitage Museum be brought into account, and in particular, that I should answer for, let us call it, "extremism". This extremism is shown by the depiction of McDonald's clown and teddy-bears being crucified on a cross. The letter writers believe that this is an insult to all Christians venerating the cross.

I will not explain that even from a theological point of view it is not a serious argument. The Public Prosecutor's Office for the Central District of St. Petersburg reviewed the complaint, took a look at the exhibition, listened to a professional explanation about contemporary art and the symbolism of the cross and the swastika. They spoke again with the exhibition organisers and came to a provisional conclusion that there were no indications of extremism in our actions. At the same time, I sent a letter to the city prosecutor requesting that they conduct an inquiry into the activities of people who in mass attempt to disrupt the normal operations of the museum and the prosecutors. So far there has been no response from the public prosecutor's office, or an assessment of the degree of extremism of our activities.

We firmly believed and believe that a museum is an institution that has the right to decide what art is and what it exhibits. The tastes of the crowd in this case cannot provide us with any aesthetic or moral values. But this is quite beside the point. If it were so, the issue would not have been mentioned in my press conference. There is a more important issue at stake here. On the internet there is a site that contains a sample of the letter to the public prosecutor against the Chapman exhibition, which is the model for all the letters sent to the prosecutor. And the same website published instructions on how to address the letters to the St. Petersburg prosecutor, with detailed references to the text, which must be included.

Now this is getting interesting, and that is why I have drawn the attention of our own staff and St. Petersburg journalists to this amusing incident. We all remember the role of "society" in the repressions. To begin with you must achieve "public outrage", which relates to letters written simultaneously to the media and the prosecutor's office, then there is an article, and after that all else follow. I remember what happened to Joseph Brodsky, the "public anger" and the article on the "Pseudo-literary drone".

Here, as always, the tragedy is repeated like a farce. I repeat: a museum displaying the works of internationally acclaimed artists should not fear that any one will set the public prosecutor on them. In this case we have the right to demand that the prosecutor defends our honour and dignity from those who might attack it. Indeed I stated at the press that we are thinking of holding a scientific conference dedicated to the problem of provocation and slander in international art, where we will invited not marginal people but serious historians, theologians, art historians, lawyers and normal, thinking people.

I suggest that our society desperately needs this.

As to the exhibition itself, which the complainants probably have not seen, it is done as a tradition dialogue that we do at the State Hermitage Museum about contemporary art and we display the work of the famous Chapman brothers in its historical context along with engravings by Goya and instruments of torture from the middle ages. Anyone interested in art can see the Chapman brothers with modern severity and provocation are continuing the traditions of international art established by Bosch's Hells, Bruegel's Horrors and the numerous Final Judgments. All of this has taken place through the experience of the 20th century, and the symbols of popular culture hung alongside the weapons of ancient punishment serve as a reminder that those horrors that have been endured once may return.

My introduction to the exhibition catalogue is entitled So They Joke after Auschwitz. After Auschwitz art truly became cruel - but it is not entirely its fault. Modern art widely uses provocation as a method, and here it is very important to understand the difference between artistic provocation and non-artistic. When artistic provocation becomes political or sacrilegious, it ceases to be art. This boundary is quite difficult to determine, and museums can decide this and give an expert opinion on the artistic quality of artwork today. It is most important to me, that art should be judged by professionals and not marginal groups.