|
Interview with the Journal of St Petersburg
University
Nr 23 (3713) November 2005.
- Mikhail Borisovich, the Department of Museum Affairs and Protection
of Monuments has begun to function. Can you summarize for us the results
of this department's work so far?
- It is rather early to draw up conclusions. It will be possible to say
something concrete only after five years, when the students prove themselves
in practical work. But there is a certain growth and signs of maturity
in the department itself. On the one hand, we have just been discussing
our participation in the Herald of St Petersburg University. A
very interesting collection of articles from the department is being prepared.
There are methodology seminars by members of the faculty. All together
this is proof that the philosophy of our common project has taken shape.
In addition, we have established relations with similar departments at
other universities, in particular with the University of Culture, with
whom we have had a whole series of seminars. There is a unique system
of participation by Petersburg museums in the training of students. The
department was initiated to be a joint work between museums - the Hermitage,
the Russian Museum, the Museum of Ethnography. One course is permanently
given in the Hermitage's storage facility - which is the newest custom-built
art storage on world-class level. Even if people just sit there one hour
a week, they enter the world of modern museum life - security, alarms,
climate control, reporting. Other activities are regularly held in the
building of the General Staff in the operations center of the Greater
Hermitage project. There students hear lectures on conservation of monuments
from within one such monument, where there are displays of schematics,
models, architectural plans. The theories of museum management still have
to be created. The main thing today is the practice of high class museum
management. I think the process is going well. It is of good quality and
interesting.
- The entering class has very few students - just 14 people. What
can you tell us about them?
- I think that 14 people is a lot. I graduated from the Oriental Department
and am sure that a group of more than 5 people is already a crowd. The
first year went by. All the students passed their exams very well. None
was disappointed with his choice, nor are we disappointed in ours, since
they are all smart, talented and enthusiastic about what they have to
learn. For the moment everything is going fine.
- There is the world view of an historian and personal qualities that
are essential to a journalist. What kind of world view should a museum
official have?
- This is a very important question. A museum official should have very
clear qualifications in his basic specialty. In the final analysis the
staff is divided into historians, connoisseurs of art, and archeologists.
The employee should clearly appreciate the museum specifics of one or
another profession. He should understand the museum specifics of history,
of art. We intend to introduce special courses: the museum aspect of archeology,
the museum aspect of history. Museum management entails collecting, studying
and telling. Normal historical research entails study and recording for
devotees. It does not involve collecting and telling. What collecting
there is - is for oneself and for one's topic.But here we have collecting
in general in the course of which a topic for research is assigned. And
there is a much broader presentation of the results of one's work to the
public. It is a constant mixture of scholarly research and popularizing,
educational work. Both these elements should be aligned. If there is just
scholarly research without popularization, then what you get is the museum
equivalent of a book worm, and the public function of museums is not fulfilled.
Just popularization without science is a kind of campaign against illiteracy
and not a serious museum institution. The combination of popularizing
educational work and profound scholarly investigation is the foundation
of museum work.
- In museum affairs is there room for experiment? I recall the exhibition
Swamp Gold by the artist Anatoly Belkin which was shown last autumn in
the General Staff building.
- Of course, there is room for new directions.... in research and in popularization
as well as in demonstration. But this has to be done in such a way that
work is not just made up of experiments. There should be a continuous
line in the life of the museum and some permanent exhibition which everyone
knows and which generations of people grow up with. Or there should be
a certain selection of tours, lectures about the main exhibition, a general
scheme which will be altered only if there is genuine need. The exhibition
Swamp Gold is a good example of an experiment in the Hermitage's working
with modern art. We are not active in modern art in general, especially
in modern Russian art. This is the prerogative of the Russian Museum,
whose staff knows the field; they should stimulate and direct the development
of Russian art. But sometimes the Hermitage can experiment and choose
for itself a direction for contact with topical modern art. There you
have the history of the swamp dwarf civilization - a very positive experience.
I immediately sent Anatoly Belkin to see our archeologists, and they began
to work together and to dream up this funny art of swamp pygmies. As a
result what we got was a combination of two approaches: fantasy on a high
artistic level, from the side of Belkin; and the knowledge of what is
possible and what is never possible, from the side of the archeologists.
In the end we got a genuine Hermitage exhibition, and it has its practical
outcome. Now we are creating new rooms for blind children, and some of
Belkin's archeological objects will be used there for work with the children.
We got a very good result.
Another experiment of ours in modern art has been the exhibition of Vadim
Voinov. He is an historian of cities. He makes collages from various everyday
objects that he finds in ruined residential buildings. This matches well
with the process that is going on in the General Staff building. We are
reconstructing it and half of the building is in ruins. That is where
we have arranged the exhibition. This is already Voinov's third exhibition
in the Hermitage. That is really something: who can have three exhibitions
in the Hermitage?
One very fresh experiment is the exhibition of Limoges enamel. They were
for the first time exhibited together with the engravings which served
as models when they were created. In my opinion, what resulted was just
amazing. As for bad results, failed experiments - I cannot think of any.
Of course you have to experiment, you have to bring an element of theatricality
to exhibitions. To be sure, you should not overdo it and turn an exhibition
into Disneyland. Museums work with genuine articles - and this is the
main rule. As soon as "virtual" and theatricality begin to predominate,
you get Lord knows what - cinema, a show - and you no longer have a museum.
- Let's return to the qualities required of a modern museum official.
Now he should have skills in the sphere of business and management. These
are things which in our everyday understanding are not strongly associated
with the image of museum staff.
- Why is the association weak? What is changing is the vocabulary. "Management"
means running things. "Fundraising" means looking for money and financing.
These are things that were always present among Russians working in the
humanities. Why is it that during almost the entire course of the 20th
century the directors of the Hermitage were archeologists? This was so,
because the archeologist did not only know how to investigate and dig:
he had to find money for the expedition and people who would work for
the money, and then he still had to know how to account properly for the
money. Therefore the skills of an archeologist are also the skills of
management, though they may be oriented to science and culture and not
to making a profit.
This is very important: where do we put the stress - on getting money
or on achieving a concrete result. This is where the paths between management
and running cultural institutions diverge. I am a firm believer in the
European position rather than the American one in these matters: directors
of museums should be historians, archeologists and art connoisseurs who
have received the skills of management. It should definitely not be the
other way around. This is because professional managers today are people
oriented towards income. That is their only criterion. However, in museums
there are other criteria...and a different result. There are ways of earning
income which must not be applied in museums.
What is a manager? This is a person who knows how to lead, to direct.
This is just like what we had previously - Party workers. A person holds
the right ideology - that means he can lead. He can be appointed as ambassador,
premier minister, director of a museum. People have the same idea today:
that someone with the skills of business can run anything at all. But
this is not right. The past several difficult years have shown that practically
all museum staff and leaders have learned to live under modern conditions.
In museums the variety of functions that the museum performs for society
has expanded considerably. We have gained experience of survival in the
specific capitalistic jungles which have arisen around us and now we are
sharing this experience with foreign colleagues.
- The "capitalistic jungles" you have just mentioned are
now advancing on Petersburg. The old city is changing and disappearing.
How is this process reflected in the students' program? After all, their
specialty has to do with the protection of monuments.
- The protection of monuments is a very important specialty which society
badly needs nowadays. We ought to teach the students to understand exactly
what a "monument" means. A specialist ought to know that there are things
which should never be allowed whatever the circumstances.
The specialist should be acquainted with the whole subtle scheme of subterfuges
and administrative tricks. I think that in the area of protecting monuments
we are preparing not so much architects and archeologist as superbly educated
government officials who will later deal with the problem of protecting
monuments from society at all levels. Just as today the Environmental
Protection authorities in our country protect nature in a more professional
manner and work more closely with the militia.
It is important for our students to study firstly how to impart on society
the genuine idea of protection and secondly how to carry this out in real
life. In the case of museum buildings there is always the conflict between
protecting monuments and the demands of time. Builders come to me and
say: "Mikhail Borisovich, stop this disgrace - we are putting down
a water pipe and some archeologists intervene and tell us we cannot do
anything until they have excavated everything." The archeologists come
and tell me: "These technicians have again dug everything up, though here
there is a wall from the 17th century and they want to knock a hole in
it for their pipe!" And so we always have to sort out relations.
We have to precisely understand the essence of the problem. Besides knowledge
we need intuition. Some decisions should be taken by people who understand
that you just don't set up big tents in the middle of Palace Square -
by people who understand that you must not spoil the view of Palace Square
even if it is to serve some noble cause.
|