|
|
|
|
|
|
|
   Interview with the magazine "Itogi"
No. 49 (495) - Mikhail Borisovich, it would seem as though the incident over the seizure of paintings from the Pushkin Museum in Switzerland has run its course. Are you holding to your decision that the Hermitage will review all its agreements regarding exhibitions in Europe and awaits firm guaranties from the governments of the inviting countries? - In the international context, the issue has definitely not been exhausted. At present only the USA, France, Germany and Finland provide government guaranties that guest exhibitions will not be seized. I hope very much that the Swiss adventure of paintings from the Pushkin Museum will lead to changes in legislation or at least to the mechanism of enforcement in other countries. In any case we will apply all our efforts to turn this minus into a plus. What did Switzerland show us? We were being told all the time: "this is a democratic country; our judiciary is separated from the state authority; and therefore the state cannot give any guaranties to museums." It turned out that when it is absolutely necessary, the state can do so. As it was, during those days I was in London. We have for many years been holding negotiations with Great Britain over the need to find some mechanism for guaranteeing the return of paintings to museums without regard to any possible legal actions by third persons. It is worth noting that after the incident in Switzerland, all the directors of the largest British museums sent a collective letter to the Minister of Culture informing him of the need to speed up the solution of the issue of immunity of exhibitions from arrest. On the other hand, now we as well, Rosokhrankultura, the authority giving permission for temporary export of museum exhibits, are asking for very serious guaranties that exclude the possibility of the kind of loutish incidents that occurred in Switzerland when our paintings were seized as if they were some kind of narcotics shipment. -Would you say that the fate of the exhibition "Road to Byzantium," which should open in Somerset House in London in March, is not yet clear? - We still have time. We will work actively and seek a solution, though now our position is very firm. In principle we have prepared the appropriate additional terms and conditions. After all, this is not the first time we are dealing with the matter. But if we do not succeed in reaching agreement with the British, then the exhibition will not take place. - We would like some details on what you are now proposing. After the mishap in Switzerland, we get the impression that even government guaranties do not always save museum collections from seizure. - Real government guaranties can, without a doubt, provide the protection. In Switzerland there was a guaranty from the canton. Outside the cantonal borders, there was no guaranty. Secondly, there should be very strict mechanisms regarding the unswerving execution of these guaranties, and ideally this means mechanisms defined by law. In the USA, France and Germany, for example, there are laws allowing the state to declare a guest exhibition important for the cultural life of the country, something like a national project, and on this basis to guaranty its return safe and sound. Without any question, legal claims can be filed by claimants against museum exhibits. But the decision of the courts is one thing and seizure of the exhibits to satisfy a legal action is something entirely different. This distinction, just like the distinction between international law and the laws of a given country, has to be refined and on this basis you create documents which will be really solid. The mechanisms which we thought were quite reliable turned out to be absolutely useless in Switzerland. One example to mention was in Italy in the year 2000. There government guaranties protected the exhibition "One Hundred Masterpieces from the Hermitage" from unpleasantness. At the time a legal action was initiated with demand for the seizure of the Sergei Shchukin collection. However, the law suit went on, and the counter-suit of our Italian partners went on, and the paintings safely returned to Russia. The Italian authorities conducted themselves correctly, I would say. - Do we know the results of the expert examination into the state of preservation of the paintings from the Pushkin Museum that were placed under arrest? - I don't yet have precise information. I only heard that everything is more or less normal. But problems can arise later on. Paintings do not like vibrations or climatic changes. But the very fact that people can permit themselves to deal with museum exhibits in this way puts into question whether it is worthwhile transporting exhibitions in general. Of course, to do so is very important and interesting for us - to show what we are like, and so to educate Europe. But I emphasize: we are not the ones who are asking to display these works; rather we are being asked to arrange exhibitions and we are demonstrating good will. It is for that reason that the receiving side is obliged to provide us with guaranties. We are part of Europe. We show good will. And in return for our good will comes such spit. Well, we will be more careful about where we put on exhibitions. We will do so only where this is truly appreciated. In Japan and the USA there are no such problems. - With your permission, I would like to ask about another scandal relating to the arrest of a pair of gallery owners, the Preobrazhenskis, who are accused of selling fake antique paintings. Is it true that you were involved in this exposure, discovering a forged Aivazovsky in the personal collection of Vladimir Putin? - I first heard about this from material in one of the Kommersant publications. In fact I had nothing to do with this case. I never saw such a painting and I don't even know if the President has a personal art collection. As far as I know, Mr Potanin never gave any paintings by Aivazovsky to Putin. In general this whole story arouses a mixture of concern and amusement. - But in the world of art experts it has precipitated a big scandal... - That is truly serious. - How do you feel about the idea of depriving museums of the right to issue expert findings on the authenticity of paintings and instead turning this right over to private experts who sell their appraisals? - The scandal over the gallery owners is hardly the first time that museum appraisals failed to get, shall we say, full recognition from the public. The reputation of museums should be safeguarded in every way possible, and it should not be placed at risk in this area. Nowhere in the world do museums provide expert findings. As a rule, they are given by people who do not even work in museums. The Hermitage, by the way, never issued such findings and does not do so today. If our staff nonetheless put their signatures to expert findings, then they are penalized. This is a matter of principle. I am proud that in the course of many years we have resisted what appears to be very tempting offers to create some new organization for performing appraisals. There are things which it is better not to do for money. We can buy something for ourselves, we can assume risks for ourselves, though, of course, even here we really should not. But to go out and offer this on the side...On the other hand, you can count on your fingers the number of real experts who exist. And if all appraisals are turned over to private persons, then it may end up a hundred times worse. This is a sore point. - At the Hermitage have there been any sensational discoveries of forgeries of pieces on exhibition or in the storerooms? - As far as I know, no. But forgeries are frequently brought in to us. There are a lot of them circulating around Europe as well as in our country. Among them are some famous works, such as the supposedly rediscovered canvas by Jordaens. This "Jordaens" pops up from time to time and is offered for sale. Or, for example, one of the views of London supposedly done by Andre Derain: this landscape is shown to us from time to time; it goes away and then comes back again. There are quite a few fakes which were done a very long time ago. For example, very minor Dutch artists were copied frequently in the 19th century. In my opinion, we have not turned up any sensational forgeries in our collections. Frequently people bring in paintings which they are certain should cost millions but it turns out not to be the case at all. However, I repeat, we perform appraisals of this type exclusively for ourselves and for other museums of Russia and we do not determine prices. The price belongs to a very different world and very often is does not correspond to basics. - Talking about money...Recently a federal program was adopted calling for the government to allocate 54 billion rubles for "a cultural five year plan." The Hermitage, in particular, is supposed to get 3 billion. Did this number make you happy? - That is the figure which we arrived at together with the Ministry for Economic Development. This money is for completion of the construction of the Hermitage's storage facility. I am certain that the building of normal warehouses for museums is a matter of highest priority. Of course, you have to fight for every kopek, and this will be especially true two years from now when the large sums are due to come in. I want to emphasize: this figure has not been allocated for the needs of the Hermitage; it is designated for a single concrete project. On the whole during this year - for the first time in many years - we have received less money than in the past. We have had to undertake extreme measures just to keep the former Hermitage budget which we have gradually been raising over the past several years. Of course, we never got all the money we asked for, but all the same.....For the first time all this has come to a halt. - What does the Hermitage budget for 2006 look like? - 600-700 million. That is everything taken all together, including major reconstruction and the normal scheduled construction of the storage facility. - You cannot avoid purchase of new paintings. By the way, in London the Russian auctions are now proceeding actively. Are you bothered that masterpieces are slipping away into private hands? - I am not certain these are masterpieces, though, of course, there are among the sales some very good things. I think there is nothing wrong if they fall into private hands. After all the paintings are coming out of nowhere and are being registered. It is just a pity that all of this stays mainly in the West. But I think that these paintings will soon also be arriving in Russia. Of course, some of the trends you see at auctions are somewhat amazing: the big prices go to Russian painters whom I hardly consider to be the best. But in general this is gradually leveling out, I think. So let the paintings go to private collectors if we cannot buy them for the museum. This is all to the good, especially considering that more and more often private people also help museums to make purchases at auction. For example, for the large exhibition dedicated to Alexander I, we got assistance from private persons in our purchase of a remarkable water color painting of the Malachite Hall, which captured the way it looked before it became today's Malachite Hall, as well as several miniature portraits. There is a growing tendency whereby as people buy more for themselves, more and more of them want to make their contribution to the state holdings, where these things are more appropriate. A water color showing the interior decoration of the Winter Palace, for example, is extremely important for us. - Mikhail Borisovich, obviously another trend is also gathering speed - the trend to ever wider commercial use of historical monuments, especially in St Petersburg. I have in mind the recent closed charitable ball in the Catherine Palace, which brought together wealthy guests from Europe and America, including Bill Clinton, Elton John, Tina Turner, Naomi Campbell and other VIP's from around the world. Is this a way of solving the financial problems of museums? PR-technology at work? - First of all, we must consider our own behavior. The Hermitage never has and never will allow anyone to stage balls or receptions in its buildings. I think this is right: there are a great many other ways of organizing receptions linked to Hermitage projects. But museums in the various countries handle this question in various ways. The Metropolitan, for example, is always conducting evening events and happenings for which it makes its premises available. I think such a policy can be justified in the case of Tsarskoye Selo. But I do not want to judge. I repeat: we ourselves do not do it. I think we are generally the most Puritanical museum in the world. - Nonetheless in the Western press there was information to the effect that all the guests wore period costumes of the Russian Imperial Court - the ladies were in crinoline and wore diamonds; the men wore camisoles and periwigs. It was also said that many of the costumes were valuable exhibits rented from the Hermitage... - That is absolute nonsense. It sounds like the stale story about Romanov and the table service. In the Hermitage, there is nothing available for rental. Moreover, the costumes on mannequins dry out, so that they are only good for collecting dust. Not to mention that they are all in small sizes. - And did you look in on the ball? - No, it was truly a closed, private event. There are, of course, mixed Russian and foreign events like this and then there is often a large measure of PR. I think we should nonetheless develop a sensible scheme for making commercial use of cultural monuments just to ensure their safekeeping. This would be a counter-argument to what I consider the much more dangerous idea of "let's sell everything and put it in good hands." After all there are no better hands than those of people working in the domain of culture and statesmen. - By the way, work will soon begin at a commission appointed to compile a list of architectural monuments which might be sold to private owners. A certain Mr Piotrovsky is a member of this commission. Shall we consider what you have just said as your opening position? - I firmly believe that privatization of cultural monuments is the last resort. We should first prove that we cannot do anything else. A cultural monument has already become a part of the national endowment and its privatization is not like privatizing a railroad; rather it is a change in the entire cultural structure of our country. We should use all means at our disposal and only if it is clear that nothing further can be done to protect a monument, - for example, by collecting money through a lottery or by arranging charity balls - only then do you privatize. In that case you can sell. But for this to happen, we need entirely precise regulations regarding every building in which it is written down that the building must be preserved and what cannot be done. There should be a very firm legislative scheme defending the monument from any kind of initiative on the part of the private owner which might finally lead to its ruin. In this regard, contact with our potential buyers of various buildings does not inspire much optimism. At once, even before they have become purchasers, they begin to think thus: we are the owners, and you others should just keep your distance. Let me give you one example. The Hermitage wanted to take over for temporary safekeeping several paintings which were in one mansion and had been restored by the State. This was in a building which was either going to be rented out or sold. The people occupying the palace did not even want to talk with us. They did not respond to my letters. The mansion itself was not restored and the paintings remaining there are not seen by anyone. http://www.itogi.ru/Paper2005.nsf/Article/Itogi_2005_12_04_15_3302.html |
||||
Copyright © 2011 State Hermitage Museum |
