Mikhail Piotrovsky: “A museum’s success is not measured in visitor numbers.”

Kultura: Should we be congratulating you on this high result?

Piotrovsky: Success is not measured in visitor numbers. That is only one of the criteria, and far from the most important. Because a spate of people sharply reduces the quality of a visit to the largest museums such as the Hermitage or the Louvre.

The Hermitage does indeed number among the world’s foremost museums, for the size of its collections, for the character of its activities and for its universal scope. It has just two partner-rivals – the Louvre and the Metropolitan Museum. In the 20th century, we managed to become a universal museum and then to turn into a global institution with a worldwide presence. That strategy is a part of the “Greater Hermitage” concept. We tell people about Russia’s cultural history by means of enormous exhibitions. Centres have been opened in Amsterdam, Venice and Kazan. In November another will begin functioning in Omsk. Part of that concept is the Hermitage Days held around the world and the Hermitage Friends clubs. All this together forms a global museum that is innovative in many ways. For example, when the Louvre Abu Dhabi was being created, our experience with the Hermitage–Guggenheim and the Hermitage on the Amstel became models for assessing the experiment. One more instance of innovation is the repository that is open as a matter of principle. We already have two buildings functioning that way.

Kultura: What percentage of works from the stocks do visitors see in the museum?

Piotrovsky: In the Hermitage roughly 30% of what should be exhibited (not counting coins and skulls) is on display. The repositories are intended to provide the opportunity to display around 70% of the exhibits. In general, a large museum usually shows 3–4%.

Kultura: Irina Antonova, the President of the Pushkin Museum, speaks in favour of transferring paintings from the stocks of the main museums to provincial institutions, so that works might not lie around in storerooms but rather bring pleasure to people in the regions. How do you regard that sort of initiative?

Piotrovsky: Negatively. There has already been the experience of handing out things from the Hermitage’s stocks in the 1920s. The Pushkin Museum itself became a museum after the transfer of around 200 masterpieces from the Hermitage: works by Botticelli, Rembrandt… Pairs of paintings were barbarously separated, such as Murillo’s Boy with a Dog and Girl Selling Fruits. In cases like that, people fail to take account of the fact that a museum is a single large organism. It is not just the interiors and the pictures on the walls: great research work and restoration is done here. Only after scholarly processing do things become treasures or masterpieces. In my opinion, the restoration of historical justice is a Pandora’s box. If we embark on a redistribution among museums, then that same Pushkin Museum will have to give up everything it received from the Hermitage. For that reason, that kind of stance is harmful: it hinders the creation of a single united museum space in Russia.

Kultura: Have the exhibitions of Shchukin’s collection in Moscow and the Morozov collection in Petersburg put an end to discussions about the revival of the State Museum of New Western Art? Are they a step towards reconciliation between the Pushkin Museum and the Hermitage?

Piotrovsky: We have no need of reconciliation. We are constantly collaborating, despite certain disagreements. Works from the Hermitage participate each time in the Pushkin Museum’s December Evenings. We have just done a Jordaens exhibition together and are preparing a few more. Matters have long been settled. We “paid” for those works that are in the Hermitage with paintings by Rembrandt, Poussin, Botticelli and Murillo. Part of that compensation was given us back before the war – so as to form an idea of new Western art in Leningrad. And in point of fact when the Museum of New Western Art was closed in 1948, its collection very nearly went abroad. The pieces that entered the Hermitage in the 1930s were originally earmarked for sale abroad, but prices were low at that time and the works came to us. The distribution of the masterpieces between the two museums proved their salvation. Moreover, the works were not hidden away in the storerooms for long: six to ten years, after which generations of artists grew up on them. The country was closed off, but the best works of the 20th century were on display as a part of French art. Of course, it is people who put collections together. They ought to be remembered, but for all my respect and affection for Sergei Shchukin, Matisse was more significant. And Matisse needs to be presented in the context of world art and not simply as part of a collection, even one assembled by great collectors. It is a different matter that the art patrons themselves must not be forgotten. And these exhibitions are a superb reminder of them. There is one more nuance: for the Hermitage the Morozov exhibition is an important event, but it is presented in the context of the Sergei Shchukin and Morozov Brothers Memorial Gallery that we created ten years ago. There are quite a number of similar stories about collectors. For example, we currently have an exhibition devoted to the collector Pavel Stroganov, and also a project telling about the Marquis Campana, who owned one of the 19th century’s most significant collections that was also split up – between Alexander II and Napoleon III. There is an intimate exhibition of works by Max Ernst, including those collected by the French art dealer Aram Mouradian. Yet in days gone by there was no tradition of exhibiting private collections: only 40 years ago not a single museum would have done so. The Hermitage was among the first when it showed the Thyssen-Bornemisza collection.

Kultura: Recently private museums have been suffering due to the financial problems of their owners. The most striking example is the temporary closure of the Institute of Russian Realist Art (IRRA). Should the state react in some way?

Piotrovsky: That’s an important question and it needs to be raised. With us there are state and non-state museum stocks and there is a constant struggle to give them equal rights. Laws are adopted that make the import and export of works easier specifically in the interests of private museums. A private museum has more money and can spend it freely; on the other hand, a state museum does not pay taxes. The private ones also want to have those kinds of privileges, but there do also need to be restrictions on their activities. That is why the Union of Museums is gradually working out a scheme defining the concept of a museum: it differs from a gallery primarily in having its own stocks. For example, the Garage centre of contemporary art has formed some superb stocks and become a fully-fledged museum. It is one of the best private museums in Russia.

Today, though, we do need to work out a system to protect those institutions whose fate is closely bound up with that of their founders. A museum should be protected in keeping with the practice of states internationally (although each country has its own niceties). There is a principle that an important cultural event is excluded from the general workings of the law. It is termed immunity from seizure. Even if there are lawsuits with regard to works in an exhibition, they cannot be touched. The IRRA has become a phenomenon of cultural life. There ought to be mechanisms that make it possible to preserve museums irrespective of the fate of their founders. The Union of Museums intends to study the legal background. After that, we plan to appeal to the government and the State Duma. We need to put forward a scheme for the defence of private collections in the event of an owner’s bankruptcy or a change of owner. But restrictions should also be imposed on the owners: they cannot dispose of their collection freely. I think that we will be able to help the museums.

Incidentally, the Marquis Campana, whose collection we are currently displaying, was a papal financier who devised a pawnbrokerage and used the funds in his own interests. He was imprisoned as a thief and his collections were sold off. Italy lost those treasures, while France and Russia gained them. There’s the result. Yet, despite everything, Campana was a great collector. The Louvre and the Hermitage are proud of what was his collection.

Kultura: What is happening in the sphere of legislation governing questions of art patronage?

Piotrovsky: Previously in Anglo-Saxon countries patrons of the arts had their taxable income reduced a little. Today, though, that kind of policy is disappearing. In America Obama in his time intended to do away with tax concessions and Trump, it seems, has managed to partially accomplish that. In France there was a different practice: there you could avoid inheritance tax by giving part to the state. That’s how the Picasso Museum came into being. In our legislation there is a provision about a certain percentage of net profits on which you can reduce the tax. That is not a very attractive option for Russian businesspeople, though. We have plenty of art patrons who provide money and receive nothing in return apart from moral satisfaction. They get praise, publicity and appreciation. As one of them said at the Worldwide Club of Petersburgers recently: “It’s important to me what kind of country my children will live in.” That is what determines support for the arts. All the same, that law is needed. Gradually three or four clauses will emerge and there are people who’ll be able to make use of them.

Kultura: The State Duma has made changes to Federal Law 44 simplifying the procedure for making purchases for cultural institutions. Are the innovations useful to you as a museum director?

Piotrovsky: There is an illusion that in this field everything can be broken down, all laid out and then order will prevail. That Federal Law, supposedly used to choose the best bids, was fraught with criminals’ activities. They superbly worked out mechanisms enabling them to submit the winning bid, receive the money and not have any obligations. The task of the museum administration is to force them to actually do at least something before they abscond. I have a lot of experience already. The FSB is going after the non-performers and so they are in an even greater hurry to steal. This is all the result of Federal Law 44. It is founded on distrust. we need to seek ways to survive in this situation. It is hard to find good building contractors under such conditions. They do not want to work with museums due to the endless inspections and prefer to put up apartment blocks. As a result, we receive poor-quality work. Let’s hope that at some point the situation will change.

Kultura: How and with what are the Hermitage’s stocks expanding? Do you buy works from the 20th and 21st centuries?

Piotrovsky: We have long been collecting applied art from the 20th century, artistic glassware, carved stones, porcelain. There is a Department of Contemporary Art that organizes projects and exhibitions, but also concerns itself with acquisitions. We are a museum of world art. In contrast to the Russian Museum and the Tretyakov Gallery, whose function is to support artists, we should buy what will last for centuries. That is why we just acquired Anselm Kiefer and Bill Viola. In general, we select very carefully: the name obliges. But we could not pass over Boris Smelov’s photographs as he is a bearer of St Petersburg culture. It is important for us to show contemporary art projects so as to work out some model for a Hermitage collection of it.

Kultura: In one interview, you said “Visitors pass by Rubens like they pass the window display of a big shop.” Have visitors to the Hermitage changed within your memory?

Piotrovsky: There is, of course, a problem with the public. Our sociologists have determined that roughly 80% of the visitors to the Hermitage don’t know where they have come or what there is here. In winter, when the visitors are only Petersburgers it’s a different matter. They not only understand what they are coming to but will also return to an exhibition a second and third time.

Kultura: After the exhibitions of the Chapman brothers and Jan Fabre are you going to be showing provocative things? After all, you even wanted to hold a conference on the theme of “Sacrilege in world art”.

Piotrovsky: We have organized several round tables on that subject. But Jan Fabre is real art. Since it’s in a museum, that means it’s real. Our task is to explain that ununderstood and unaccustomed things are not necessarily bad at all. A universal museum like the Hermitage should show that there are different civilizations. One ought to understand the charms of a Palaeolithic Venus and know what lies behind Jan Fabre’s cats. That is important since the decline in the level of intellect is tangible. A museum plays an enormous role in that sense. We are drafting a museum strategy for St Petersburg: we have a museum-city and there are certain principles that should extend to the Northern Capital itself as well.  Then we will manage to preserve our intellectual potential.

Kultura: What can you say about the exhibition policy of state-owned museums? Do they have a free choice guided only by their own interests?

Piotrovsky: A museum can save the world. And should. But no-one has the right to tell it what it must do. There are three parts to culture. The first is fundamental, works created by geniuses that last through the centuries. It should be supported by the state and society. The second layer is the state commission: today it’s necessary to tell people about Russia, about patriotism, tomorrow about internationalism, the world revolution. The third part is the so-called culture industry that people pay money for: cinema, the Internet, advertising, design. Those three things inevitably combine in the work of a museum.

Kultura: What about information technologies? Won’t people stop going to museums since we can view so much online?

Piotrovsky: Experience over many years shows that neither splendid reproductions nor pictures on computer screes reduce people’s desire to see the originals. Technologies are indeed important, but we need to remember that they are only aids. However, there is such as thing as artificial intelligence. It uses the same algorithms as the human brain and then creates something new from the information gathered – that’s already a bit more serious. We should humanize technologies of that sort. To that end we recently held the exhibition “Artificial Intelligence and a Dialogue of Cultures”.

Kultura: Do technological innovations held to bring the younger generations into the Hermitage?

Piotrovsky: Actually, the museum exists for children. We have some wonderful study groups. The chatbot “Liza”: a playful route around the Winter Palace. People are asked questions in a special chat room. You can only answer by visiting the museum. There is the festival in the VKontakte social network and many other things that attract a young audience.

Kultura: Tell us about the Hermitage’s plans for the coming year. What new and interesting things will the public be seeing?

Piotrovsky: In December we will present a wonderful exhibition devoted to Potemkin that is part of a series of historical and cultural projects. There will be a stunning display of Assyrian reliefs from the British Museum. We also plan to show a few amazing masterpieces of the Italian Renaissance. I won’t reveal which just yet. Or the Afghan Geniza – documents from the National Library of Israel that were found in Afghanistan and tell about the mediaeval city of Bamyan in Pashto, Old Arabic and Hebrew. No-one apart from us can do such projects.

Kultura: The Piotrovskys have been a whole era in the history of the Hermitage. Are you thinking of a successor?

Piotrovsky: We have a whole museum of successors. There are dozens of colleagues who could take my place and continue the work at any moment. I already spoke about the concept of the Greater Hermitage. The initial stage has been completed: the global museum has emerged. The next stage lies in creating five major Hermitage centres in Russia. These are all serious strategic tasks. I do not intend to withdraw anywhere, but I think that I have prepared enough people capable of realizing such projects. And the main thing is that a system for it has appeared and in order to improve that we are preparing changes in the museum’s charter. They will strengthen horizontal ties – it is already hard to administer the Hermitage in a vertical manner. There is a need for several administrators who will be responsible for different sections.