Piotrovsky to RBK: “Our task is to delicately explain the world and to have the proper spirit.”

— Before the pandemic and the start of the military operation, in 2019, according to data from The Art Newspaper, the proportion of foreign visitors to the Hermitage was 38%. In Saint Petersburg’s committee for tourism based on that same year’s results, they said that 1 million tourists from China visited the city, and the Hermitage became the place most in demand with them. What is the current situation with foreign visitors?

— We do not count visitor flow the same way as you. Since the time of the pandemic, we have cancelled the fairly unpleasant practice of having entry tickets for foreigners that were more expensive than for Russian citizens. To demand more from foreigners is a colonial mentality. It has always been difficult to get rid of it. Russian citizens wanted privileges. They revolted against the idea: “Why should we have to pay as much?” Now the cost of an entry ticket is the same for everyone – 500 roubles.

A foreign tourist in a situation where they do not bring us any additional income does not by and large differ in any way from a Russian one. As for the emphasis on Chinese tourists, I have always said and repeat once again: that’s racism. In terms of behaviour, they are not one bit worse or better than, for example, Americans, who bawl so loudly that you cannot walk through the halls. Italians are noisy as well, but they are, let’s say, noisy in a jolly, pleasant way. And Russian visitors, let’s admit, are not all the same either.

— What is important to you in the data about visitor numbers?

– For me the primary indicator is not the number of foreigners, but rather the number of visitors who come into the Hermitage free of charge or at a concessionary rate. With us in this country, the laws do not call for large concessions for certain categories of citizens when visiting museums. Consequently, a cultural institution’s ability to receive non-paying visitors depends on how much that institution has earned. Right now, in the Hermitage 25% of our guests get in completely free of charge, and if we add in the reduced-price tickets then it makes 30%. That’s a million people.

Besides that, during the pandemic, there was an increase in the quantity of individual tourists, people who come on their own, who do not view what is laid out for them in the [once very popular illustrated] magazine Ogonyok, so to speak, but what is really to their own liking. We have cameras set up in the halls and thanks to them we can see that there are greater numbers of people with children, many couples. Around 60% of visitors are under the age of 35. With those cameras we can also keep track of which exhibits get the most attention from individual visitors. That is one more important indicator for us.

— Why is that important?

— Any tourist in a group is a misfortune for a museum. A big group is noisy when moving around, blocks the passageways, prevents people approaching this or that picture, because a group simply has to stand still. That is why we are now in a battle with our guided tour office and insisting that all tourist groups come either in the morning or the evening, when there are fewer individual visitors.

— You mentioned that from the cameras it’s possible to tell which paintings are most in demand. Have you done any analysis of such data?

— That is “personal data” as a point of fact. Now we are developing powerful piece of software with artificial intelligence that will see what is in demand and to what extent. That’s a very dangerous matter, though: as soon as you start getting such data, you begin to manipulate it.

For me such a camera-based analysis, like analysis of the social networks, which are in general full of all sorts of dirt and foul things, is necessary not so as to correct our behaviour, but to understand the kind of people we are dealing with. We are dealing with a very sharp decline in the level of culture. A huge amount of those criticizing are people who have never been to the museum. That is particularly evident if you look at the criticism of contemporary art: people draw on material that does not correspond to what is actually in the museum. Our business is to nurture and educate them. And that is best done when an individual visitor comes who is interested not only in Leonardo da Vinci and five or six other pictures learnt by rote, but also in Lorenzo Lotto, the majolica and much more besides.

When someone comes with a group, they have a clear, straightforward route. Visitors of that sort get a tale told nicely, and that’s enough for them. But if someone has come for a second time, on their own initiative, then we can already work with them, show them something new.

— Do you consider the present level of ticket prices sufficient?

— We put the main emphasis on a whole range of services that cost more than the entry ticket. There is access outside of the usual hours, guided tours, attending a music concert or some other kind of event. We have, for example, performances of theatrical mysteries by some paintings. I reckon that that is what we should be making money on.

— What percentage of your public takes advantage of the special offers?

— Not very many so far. Due to certain circumstances, however, the public’s aspirations have altered. People are travelling less to the Maldives and coming more often to the Hermitage. And among those people there are those who have clearly been to, say, the Prado. Still, that requires a certain amount of time for adaptation.

Our main complex – the Winter Palace – is full to the limit. We have practically returned to the pre-pandemic level: the number of visitors in 2023 will reach 3 million. However, the General Staff building, for example, is aimed at certain visitors. A particular kind of art is displayed there – Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, the Museum of the Guards, Fabergé. It has a different museum atmosphere – that’s a place where people aren’t yet entirely used to going.

— What enabled you to get visitor numbers back to pre-pandemic figures?

— Forget figures. The figure should be not “How many came?” but “How many do you want to receive?”. During the pandemic we introduced time-slots and it is the time-slots specifically that determine the quantity of people that will find it pleasant in the Hermitage. Now we still reckon things by such time-slots: the system of ticket sales on the website has proved very convenient for avoiding getting more visitors than we need. It comes out at around 20,000 per day – which in actual fact is already too many. Naturally, in the summer months we sell more tickets, but the goal here is not to make money, but to give people the chance to visit the museum.

—The packed space in front of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre – is that a bad thing?

— It is bad. I believe that people should be given access to such pictures group by group. With time everyone should arrive at the practice of restricted access, the way it has been organized for Leonardo’s Last Supper in Milan. There will be restricted access like that to the shrine of Alexander Nevsky, for instance. And it ought to be the same with the Mona Lisa.

— Last year the Ministry of Culture announced that it considers it necessary to raise the funding of certain museums to 60%, especially the central ones. Is it necessary in your view, to increase the funding of state museums? If so, with what aims and tasks in mind?

— I do not know where an increase is needed and for whom. We always had a ratio of 60% state funding and 40% of our own earnings. Some years it has even been the other way around. In 2023, we took around 2 billion roubles. Our overall budget is in the region of 5 billion, including capital construction work.

Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that we are a non-commercial institution. And right now there is a powerful offensive against non-commercial museums. I am talking about the law under discussion for the regulation of the creative industries that equates museum activities with commercial ones. We will be fighting seriously against that law. Yes, a museum should make money, but demanding that income from it is not on.

— Are you not planning to increase the price of tickets next year?

— That’s a difficult question. I personally am not planning, but my financial services are insisting. Compare our charges with the cost of tickets to other museums. In the USA, it’s a total disaster. Museum tickets there cost at least $30, and even the Metropolitan that used to be free of charge isn’t any longer. Leading museums in Russia also charge more. So, for us to keep the current prices is not the right move economically. We have been holding out up to now. Evidently, though, at some point we will have to raise prices, even despite the flood of abuse that will follow in the social networks. Because practically everything that comes from the state subsidy goes towards labour costs.

— What’s the average salary in the museum now?

— Roughly 87,000 roubles [a month]. The modal salary is 73,000, the median about the same. The pay of major specialists might reach 200–250,000. In all recent years, we have tried to keep the minimum pay level at $1,000. Everything has changed this year, but I hope that we will be able to get close to that bar. It’s the year end now. We are receiving additional money, big payments are coming.

— How pressing an issue is personnel in the Hermitage?

– So far there are no real problems, although we are hearing certain little “wake-up calls”. If you are on the staff of the Hermitage, then you have a lot of work. Hard work at that. It’s particularly difficult for young people, who are used to earlier times, when you could earn a great deal just from being talented. The Hermitage, however, means work, day in, day out, from morning till evening. 

— Do you allow people to work remotely?

– Yes, we developed that kind of system back during the pandemic, but it is meeting with fierce resistance from the ministry’s scrutineers. We deliberately introduced a system along the lines of the one that once existed in the Academy of Sciences, allowing researchers to work remotely two days a week. However, the head of department has to answer for every minute of their remote working. Still, that flexible system is nonetheless encountering great resistance from the HR managers.

— How much time do you yourself spend at your place of work?

— My place of work is everywhere. Because I work from nine in the morning to nine in the evening. I get up, sit at my desk, turn on the computer, sign papers – first at home, then in the car and then here.

— In 2016, in an interview with TASS, you said a lot about the preservation of artworks. Let me quote: “The memory of our ancestors is sacred and you must not destroy it if you do not like it. The sacredness of the museum space and the cultural space must be insisted upon.” According to UNESCO statistics, since the start of the military operation in Ukraine more than 150 cultural heritage objects have suffered, including 12 museums. What measures are needed to save cultural heritage in the zone of military conflict and is the Hermitage participating in that process?

— Let’s start with philosophy. We have just had the Cultural Forum, where one of the main themes of the museum track became actions in wartime conditions. We discussed Iraq, and Syria, and Russia, and Ukraine. Exclamations of “oh, they’ve destroyed…” are the other side of the issue. That doesn’t apply to museums. The question that does affect museums, directly and specifically, is how to preserve things. A special algorithm does exist; it has been worked out. It’s not for nothing that from morn to night we recall the Hermitage during the siege. At that time, things were moved to places of safety, while the location of those places was deliberately not announced. The return of evacuated items is carried out only after the museum has been restored. Besides that, everything that takes place during the war ought to be recorded.

Regarding the present situation in the sphere of the special operation, that is a wartime situation. Consequently, many details are not being publicly revealed. Nobody is saying, for example, where things have been taken to, how safe they are and so on.

Those UNESCO figures are taken out of thin air. The assessment on our side is not being announced. The question is how to preserve exhibits. And everyone’s favourite talk about how museums should maintain neutrality, that they should speak out against war and all that kind of thing – that’s not our genre.

We are working on how to help restore the museums in the new territories. In particular, we are facing the question of the museum in Mariupol – that’s a city twinned with Saint Petersburg. The museum there has been ruined, but the objects have survived. Our position is that in the plans for recovery there should always be plans for reconstruction or even the creation of a new museum. I think that we should strive to create something new.

— Have connections been established with the museums in the new territories?

– We – the Hermitage and the Union of Museums of Russia, of which I am head – have connections with all the museums. The most important thing is to include them into our country’s united museum sphere. We regularly organize profession-oriented work experience visits, send members of staff to exchange connections and experience. Financial support is a matter for the ministry. It will only be possible to do more and speak about it publicly when military operations have ceased.

– How are you interacting now with Western museums? Do any contacts with Ukrainian museums remain?

– There are no official connections now with Ukrainian museums, nor with any of the others. You need to understand that it is not a matter of communications. We are dealing with a boycott, an official ban on all state and in part non-state institutions in the West consorting with Russian institutions. The situation is considerably worse than it was in Soviet times.

Nevertheless, we do continue to exist globally. The Celestial Hermitage project – a display in the cloud – is continuing to develop. We are the only museum with a virtual visit that includes all its halls. Two-thirds of our collection has been digitized. We are bringing out our own NFTs. People around the world see that.

— Do you understand what the reaction is from the foreign audience?

– You know, when some article of mine appears in the press, feedback on it immediate gets published in the Western media. Critical, of course: “Dear me, this Russian said…” When we signed an agreement with Iran, four newspapers in Europe published an item about it. And no-one was bothered that it was just a continuation of the agreement concluded five years ago. So yes, at a minimum people in the West do keep track of what we are doing.

— Have personal ties survived?

— Yes, on a personal level there are connections. We continue to have consultations. Still, it’s easiest to have a dialogue with those who are already retired, who won’t be affected at work. The Hermitage Amsterdam kept the name for a year, until they really got “nailed”. Now they are the H’ART Museum – that does still have a reminder in it, let’s put it that way.

The pandemic taught us that exchanges and communication can be maintained even without lugging pictures to one another. Lugging them around is dangerous and can end badly. We have already seen situations when, after war broke out, everyone started calling for exhibitions to be impounded. This time our guarantees functioned. At present, though, it is better not to take exhibitions to anyone else. But good use should be made of other methods. Interaction between people. A brand is more than just a banner name.

— In your opinion, will it be realistic to resume collaboration with Western partners at some point?

— What does “Western partners” mean? We have some illusions on that score. For example, we had splendid ties with the Louvre, but we did not especially take exhibitions to the Louvre, and the entire partnership came down exclusively to exchange: you give us a Leonardo, we’ll give you a Raphael. Or another situation: exhibitions from the British Museum here suddenly stopped. In actual fact, there were only two in my time.

—For many years, it seemed that Russia is a part of the European cultural code. In conditions of a breach with the West, has anything changed?

— We are the best country in Europe. We are also the best country in Asia. We never departed from Europe and never will. We are a part of European culture, but of Asiatic culture too. The charm, the distinctiveness of Russia lies in that very combination.

— The museum community, like many branches of culture, has actively turned towards the East and Asia in the past year. What trends has that shift brought on? To what degree is that culture close and understandable to a viewer from Russia?

— Now the whole world is jam packed with amazing museums. Take the Arab East: there one museum is better than the next, and new ones spring up almost by the day. Superb collections, and not just about history either. Everything is the best there, the modern and contemporary art. The Museum of Modern Art in Qatar, for example.

On the other hand there’s China, where there is a really strong artistic life. Incidentally, back during the pandemic we held an exhibition of Zhang Huan, a Chinese artist. So those ties have existed for a long time. And when everything gets back to normal, they will stimulate a desire to collaborate with us among European institutions as well, even if it’s already in the next generation there.

— Has the Hermitage bought any paintings from Asiatic collections this year?

– We do acquire an awful lot, but only with us, mainly in Russia. There are suggestions, but it is difficult for us to purchase anything abroad. We simply cannot transfer the money anywhere.

—How critical is the problem with insurers?

– Right now, we are not taking anything anywhere, so there is no problem particularly. We have a moratorium on taking things abroad that comes from both us and the ministry. There are exceptions: we did export items to China for an exhibition about tea. For the moment, though, those are single instances, due to both the insurance and the threat of impounding. When we brought the Parthenon marbles here in 2016, that aspect had to be considered first and foremost. There were roundabout routes via the Arab Emirates. And everyone learnt about the “special operation” itself only after we put the exhibits on show.

—Special operation?

—Any museum exhibition is a “special operation”. It involves the most delicate negotiations, the most elaborate guarantees. Transport, insurance, lighting – all of that is very complicated nowadays. Besides that, under the prevailing rules, when preparing any exhibition, even within Russia, there has to be a tender process. And any tender means making very sensitive information public: what kind of exhibition, when and where it will be, the amount covered by insurance, the routes used to deliver the items. All of that is very dangerous information in our times.

— What has been purchased in Russia recently?

— Just at this moment we are purchasing the large collection of one remarkable collector of Russian art. Besides that, this year we acquired a collection of 18th-century Russian and European footwear.

— You haven’t come up with an estimate yet for expenditure on new acquisitions in 2023?

– We don’t make estimates, but I reckon it will be around 100 million roubles. That’s almost ten times what the state subsidy provided. Still, acquisitions are not a priority for the Hermitage. We do not have the money for what we really need, and we never did. In this case, our hope is mainly directed towards art patrons. For example, we took to Yekaterinburg for the first time a portrait of Peter I painted in his lifetime by Yan Kupetsky that was donated to us by Mikhail Karisalov [chairman of the board and general director of the company Sibur – RBK].

– At the cultural forum mentioned previously, the party from Kazakhstan announced the “topical relevance of the question of the return” of historical artefacts and cultural valuables located in Russia. The Hermitage has in its keeping, among other things, lamps from the mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi. Is the question of handing over any exhibits to Kazakhstan under consideration? If so, on what terms?

— That question will be examined by the Ministry of Culture. Discussions about “returns” should be conducted within the framework of international agreements. Let’s start with the fact that the lights of the mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi in question were actually made in Iran and are a masterpiece of Iranian art. Here there is a serious discussion about what belongs to whom, what legal basis there ought to be for the demands, the handover procedure and so on. I think it will take shape. In just the same way as we will form a system of cultural sovereignty as a whole.

I categorically do not accept the word “return”. Even when our churchmen say that we “returned the shrine of Alexander Nevsky.” We did not return anything. We handed it over. We saved it from being ceremoniously melted down and it spent a hundred years with us. We were a bona fide recipient. The same applies to all the things that can be found in museums around the world: they were either rescued or brought out in particular situations. They are a part of the museums in which they are kept.

We need to use the formula “handover” and not “return” or “removal”. A museum is not some trading depot. People say: “The Parthenon should be standing in sunny Athens and not in some dark hall of the British Museum.” Yet the Parthenon in the British Museum is a part of European culture. Specifically that of Europe and not of Classical Antiquity. To take that away requires some serious arguments. Incidentally, the Greeks do have one such argument – they have built a museum. [the reference is to the Acropolis Museum in Athens, opened in 2009 – RBK].

There’s another very important thing. Art is the heritage of humanity. It is only in part the heritage of one people. If it is only your heritage, then you can destroy it. That’s how ISIL [The “Islamic State”, a terrorist organization banned in Russia – RBK] members destroyed Palmyra – everyone’s heard about that. That’s how Christians in part destroyed the culture of Antiquity, the Library of Alexandria. That’s how Protestants in Britan and Holland destroyed Catholic statues. That’s how we destroyed churches – I’m referring to the Bolsheviks.

Art belongs to humanity, though. And the principle that it should be accessible to all is just as important as that it should belong to the nation, the presumed place where it was created.

Discussion of art is nowadays being conducted by and large as if it’s about property, and that’s a terrible thing. The inflated prices for art that prevail in the world now have led to everyone seeing it that way: say, that’s expensive, oh, I want it; say, a ton of silver, oh, we want it. On account of that, it gets forgotten that art actually has a spiritual dimension that does not envisage discussions about returning it.

— What is your attitude to the cancellation of concerts and performances featuring artists who have spoken out against the military operation?

— I do not have one. We are all in a moment of choice right now. Each person should choose what they do, what they say, how they behave towards others. Everyone should make that choice. Further on there will be repayment based on that choice. Just who will repay – that is another question.

— At some point you expressed a high opinion of Alexander Sokurov’s new film – Fairytale.

— It’s a remarkable, brilliant film.

— But the Ministry of Culture has not issued a screening licence for it. Sokurov has called that censorship.

— Firstly, I will repeat that the film is absolutely brilliant. Secondly, the Ministry of Culture granting a screening licence bears no relation to the brilliance of the film. They permit those films that they consider convenient, good for state policy and for the economy. I assure you that Sokurov’s Fairytale will do absolutely nothing for the economy. Not many people will go to see it. There is nothing dreadful about the situation.

Sokurov’s films have been shelved before. His film The Russian Ark does not get screened in Russia. That’s not due to the Ministry of Culture or to politics. It’s simply that the producer who partially holds the rights to it won’t let it be shown because he has taken offence to Sokurov and to the Hermitage. So films do have difficult fates right now. Still, brilliant pictures do not go away. “Manuscripts don’t burn.” Especially now, with modern technologies. Fairytale is on the Internet.

— What artefacts and works of art peculiar to our time might in future become the property of the Hermitage?

— I don’t know. The museum collects everything. What will prove important? Only time will tell. The museum should to the maximum possible extent collect, record and preserve everything. It’s not our task to earn money. It’s not our task to accuse anyone to their face. Our task is to delicately explain the world and to have the proper spirit.

— You have been head of the Hermitage for more than 30 years. Is preparing a successor on the agenda?

— Of course. We don't have the system that existed in the Soviet Union, when everything was precisely written down and everyone would update the list of their successors’ names. Still, successors are ready. The Hermitage provides the preparation.

— Who is being considered?

— I won’t say, because that will immediately lead to intrigues. My contract still has a year and a half or two years to run. But a few people are under consideration.

This material was published on the RBK website on 9 December 2023.