On the place of modern art in the life of the State Hermitage.
An answer to a letter of a visitor of the exhibition "Printer's Mistake. A gift of Ilya and Emilia Kabakov to the State Hermitage"

From a letter of a museum visitor to Mikhail Borisovich Piotrovsky, Director of the State Hermitage

Dear Mikhail Borisovich,

I'm not aware of your attitude to modern art and its place in the Museum's life, but I consider it to be unacceptable to demonstrate within the walls of the Hermitage works containing offensive language. I am referring to Small Hares by Ilya and Emilia Kabakov.

The answer of Dmitri Ozerkov, Curator of the Modern Art Sector

Thank you for your letter devoted to the place of modern art in the life of the State Hermitage. On behalf of Director of the State Hermitage I have the honour to inform you that the Hermitage pays special attention to the presentation and collection of modern art. This is being conducted by the Modern Art Sector as a part of the Hermitage 20/21 project under the supervision of the Museum's administration.

Within the framework of the Hermitage program of the modern art exhibition we are aiming to enlight different aspects of contemporary art paying special attention to the most significant names of contemporary art world. It is needless to say that the oeuvre of Ilya and Emilia Kabakov is a part of it. The temporary exhibition Printer's Mistake presents the works that were given to the Hermitage modern art collection by Ilya and Emilia Kabakov in 2010.

In the exhibition the Modern Art Sector aims to show that by the 21th century plenties of forms of art expression and conveying the message have been formed. The 20th century art history is full of examples when works of classic modernism and postmodernism could arouse a feeling of shock, rejection or antagonism. This is the history of the "means of influence" of modern art you are writing in your letter about and which you can't put aside speaking about contemporary art. However, a negative reaction of some viewers doesn't at all mean that state museums must unambiguously refuse to collect and present such works as Flying Figure by Auguste Rodin (Musee Maillol, Paris), Les Demoiselles d'Avignon by Pablo Picasso (Museum of Modern Art, New York), The Origin of the World by Gustave Courbet (Musee d'Orsay), Fountain by Marcel Duchamp (Pompidou Centre, Paris), Artist's Shit by Piero Manzoni (90 parts in the museums all over the world and private collections), Fillette by Louise Bourgeois (in different museums of the world). This also concerns so called "offensive captions" that are not once seen in works by Marc Chagall, Salvador Dali, Tracey Emin and many other eminent artists.

We assume that we deal with an attentive and prepared viewer that is capable to see mastership and mischief and distinguish a trick from a trumpet call and an artistic gesture from a direct insult. We also proceed from the assumption that within museum walls there is a territory of "art for art's sake". That is why we pay particular attention to a maximum separation of art from our daily life and that we are trying to achieve by expository means. The Museum levels religion and secularism, mysticism and carnival, wealth and poverty, sanctification and profanation by "art for art's sake" presumption. The Museum approach to art allows to think about any artistic message as a part of art as such and deny its unambiguous and direct outward effect. This also concerns offensive language. The "substandard" of screen printing Small Hares is not addressed directly to the viewer but appeals to the sphere of standard as such in the way that was formed in the Soviet school of 1970s. The expressive tradition of 1970s encouraged to be honest towards the reality and was severe to brightening a miserable Soviet reality with "small hares" in the eyes of a pupil who was to face it in real life. On the other hand, let me assure you that in the Hermitage collection there is quite a number of works that can be called "provocative" and that we still do not hurry to demonstrate them to an inquiring Russian viewer despite our own reasons.

Like other major museums of the world the State Hermitage thinks that it is unacceptable to pretend that all of the above mentioned masterpieces that were crucial for the 20th century history of art do not exist and exclude them out of the exposition on account of some "appropriate standard". In that case, you will have to classify such works of the Hermitage collection, as canvases by Giulio Romano and Rubens, ancient sculpture and Japanese graphics, numerous works presented at temporary exhibitions of Louise Bourgeois, Robert Mapplethorpe etc. as so called "provocative" works.

Standard is a school concept that is not directly related to the encyclopedic museum like the Hermitage. Imposing nothing on the viewers, the Museum, vice versa, encourages their meditation concerning the languages of art, ways and forms of art expression and the place of art in history and history's place in art. From the perspective of a universal museum standard as such is a historic notion. The Italian marble statues of nude goddesses that were installed in the Summer Garden by Peter I evoked such negative reaction of Petersburgers that in the 18th century an armed soldier have to be assigned to guard the statues and not to let rejection of the viewers outgrow into aggression. Today these "obscene" works including "Venus Tauride" are pearls of the Hermitage antiquities.

We suppose that blind complying with accepted standards will emasculate a museum exhibition tradition transforming it from a world leading institution of culture into a primary school morality jail. Museum is not a means of taboo demolition. Its aim is to monitor and present the history of taboo demolition in society.

Sincerely yours,
Dmitri Ozerkov