Mikhail Piotrovsky: Traditional Values Do Have a Defence

The topic of the preservation of traditional values is being discussed around the world. We are not alone in this. The Russian path does not differ from others. We do, however, have a certain chance of coming up with a good recipe because in the course of our history we have already been through a lot: we had the Ten Commandments, then the Moral Code of the Builders of Communism, decommunization, repentance, perestroika… A lot of experience. We could become a model for how to deal with traditional values. We haven’t yet.

Recently the Dmitry Likhachev Russian Heritage Institute put forward for discussion its draft “Basics of state policy for the preservation and strengthening of Russia’s traditional spiritual and moral values”. The Ministry of Culture removed the draft from discussion, but the topic did not go away.

A blending of genres took place. What we had in the form of that – very carelessly put together – document was in effect instructions for the placement of state commissions. Supposedly money ought only to be given to those who are “good”. Then it lays out point by point, who’s bad, who’s an enemy.

The Ministry of Culture is coping with state commissions. There are criteria; they function. The draft, meanwhile, contained standard precepts and a list of “enemies”. Texts like that might come from departments for countering corruption, but not from an institute that bears the name of Likhachev and is engaged with cultural heritage.

Besides anything else, those proposals are superfluous for the defence of traditional values. There is legislation on culture, amendments to which have come through the stage of public discussion and been submitted to the government. Those adopted previously were also discussed, and it was decided that they did not require any alterations. That is to say, the Ministry of Culture’s work with institutions in its ambit is proceeding satisfactorily.

That’s on the one hand. On the other, there are strict laws about, among other things, besmirching a person’s honour and dignity, offending the feelings of believers… There’s no need to invent anything more.

What is needed is a strategic programme for the preservation of ethnical cultural traditions that indicates how they should be understood and preserved. It is to that end that the Year of the Cultural Heritage of the Peoples of Russia has been proclaimed. It is a mechanism for working out some new principles for cultural ethnical policy, for understanding what is important and what isn’t.

The Constitution contains a clause that says: the culture of Russia is the unique property of its multi-ethnic people, it is protected and supported by the state.

I often say that culture is made up of three components. The first is fundamental culture that should be protected by the state, even if it conflicts with some general conceptions, The second is, roughly speaking, the state commission – what the state requires today for such a political task as fostering patriotism, national self-awareness. The state can support that, but not at the expense of the rest. Finally, there are the creative industries that feed themselves. Their existence is regulated not by the state but by the market.

The task of cultural institutions is to be a bridge between people and between different cultures. Cultural traditions and values do not always coincide among various ethnic groups, even within the borders of Russia. Museums should be a medicine for the hysteria that flares up for any reason, including over the fight for cultural values. Traditions ought to be preserved and tended, but without hysteria. We need to be able to live alongside those who think differently. That is a great achievement of humanity. Now a shift away from that is beginning. I believe that it is dictated by weakness, by inadequacy. When you are not able to talk things out with a neighbour, you get angry, shut the door and refuse to communicate. Although you could get along.

I am fond of repeating that museums are better than the environment. They should not be regarded as an entertainment and leisure facility. They have experience that is worth looking at closely – the experience of a dialogue of cultures. The museum replaces wars of memory with a dialogue of cultures. The dialogue can be as heated as you like, but it should include filters to forestall hatred. You can argue about cultural differences, but not rush into a fight. In museums, differences give rise not to hatred but to interest.

This year, Hermitage Days will take place and are planned in fifteen cities – from Amsterdam to Vladivostok. They are always a set of events: an exhibition of a single work or a large exhibition, master classes, lectures, films… There are topics that need to be discussed when we are speaking about cultural values. The first is the 350th anniversary of the birth of Peter the Great. Peter is Russia’s European choice, which is far from unequivocal, There are adherents of that choice, there are opponents. Last year was devoted to Alexander Nevsky. He stands in opposition to Peter. Alexander Nevsky is a fight against the West and conciliation with the East. A different culture, a different set of values.

At one time we had a remarkable exhibition “Peter and Charles XII”. We compared and contrasted legendary figures of two nations. The exhibition was held with success not only here, but also in Sweden. Then, together with the Swedes we produced an exhibition about the Battle of Poltava, where we told people about the history that can be discussed with a variety of emotions.

We have just celebrated the 170th anniversary of the New Hermitage. That topic, too, is connected with Peter, with the opening of a window on Europe. He saw cabinets of curiosities in Europe and created his own Kunstkammer, better than the ones there. Catherine II bought paintings in Europe and assembled a collection that was better than its royal ones. In Nicholas I’s time, public museums started to be created in Europe. He constructed a building that is a masterpiece of museum architecture. Russia’s European choice is part of the cultural values.

The Hermitage Days this year have another aspect as well – the 1100th anniversary of the adoption of Islam in Volga Bulgaria. Islam is also a very important element in the cultural heritage of the populace of Russia, which includes Muslims. Those values sometimes do form part of the traditional set, and sometimes they do not. The ban on drinking alcohol and the distinctive structure of the Muslim family do not mean that those should apply everywhere. Still, we need to understand the complexity of traditions sanctified by world religions.

There are traditions of devotion to one’s ancestors. In some parts of Russia those traditions forbid archaeological excavations. In general – is digging up graves a good thing or not? Is it right to remove a deceased person from the ground for scientific purposes, for identifying royal remains? It’s no straightforward decision.

We have just opened a wonderful exhibition of Flemish art in Kazan – Rubens, Van Dyck, Snyders… It is not just a display of beautiful works. It is about the Baroque. The Baroque is a brilliant phenomenon in art, born, incidentally, out of an ideological contest. The upsurge in Catholic art was supposed to return people to true faith in God, to counter Protestantism. The social commission of the state. Rubens and other artists fulfilled that commission. It turned out remarkably, in part because alongside there was Protestantism and Rembrandt, There was a competition of sorts: who was better at attracting people’s souls. You have to know how to attract souls. You don’t achieve anything with a ban.

In the Hermitage–Siberia Centre there will be an exhibition about Alexander I and in Kazan one about Alexander the Great of Macedonia. That is also about traditions. A man called Alexander assumes certain obligations, especially if he is a ruler. Catherine named her grandson Alexander, with the implication that he would conquer the world. He did conquer Paris. We have the heritage of Alexander of Macedonia and Alexander I. It’s possible to discuss how great they were. Was Borodino a victory or a defeat that sapped Russia’s strength?

In the Hermitage this year there will be an exhibition about Egyptomania. It is about the way that the traditions of Egyptian culture were perceived by European culture. On the one hand there was admiration, on the other plundering. Artefacts were exported and installed in museums, and as a result Egyptian culture began to be seen as something great, more than other ancient cultures. Egyptomania gave rise to the lofty reputation of Egyptian culture and at the same time to kitsch, to the significant distortion of the aesthetic principles of Ancient Egyptian art and its spirit. The exhibition can be turned into a discussion and not simply present attractive depictions of Nefertiti and Egyptian reliefs on the façades of Saint Petersburg buildings. It is an occasion to speak about how the convergence of cultures occurred.

The museum finds the means to speak about everything. This year sees a round anniversary – 20 years since Alexander Sokurov’s film The Russian Ark came out. An interesting account of the history of Russia. There is no revolution in it. It is a specific approach to the understanding of our history. We have learn to speak about that complicated topic as well. In Omsk there is a display in the Museum of the Civil War. When I was there, there were two guides who conducted tours. One sympathized with Kolchak, the other with the Reds. There is an interesting display in Tambov devoted to the Tambov Rebellion [of peasants against Bolshevik rule in 1920–21]. That’s another sore point in our history. The museum presents the facts, shows the faces of the people and does not give a clear-cut assessment. Look and think for yourself how it should be regarded.

We need to not be afraid of complexities, to learn to take pleasure in them. We are proud of the exhibition “After Raphael” and the Dürer exhibition. They weren’t blockbusters in terms of the works on show, but the curators found interesting lines for the narrative. Many people were delighted by the Dürer exhibition because they found out what engraving is. There are also separate tickets to that exhibition with an hour to view it. There was feedback saying that is too little time to examine everything. We extended the time slot.

The museum shows how innovation becomes tradition, while traditions can go away and die. In the Museum of Modern Art, MoMA, in New York, half the works are already classics. At one time, too, the top floor of the Hermitage aroused furious arguments. It used to be said that the Impressionists’ art did not conform to our traditional values. Still today, there are people who regard Matisse and Picasso with disdain, but there are no longer very many of them.

In conclusion, let me return to the matter of censorship. The existing set of rules is even excessive to some extent. There is no need for anything else. There are strict laws that make it possible to punish those who transgress them. There is also our country’s well-known self-censorship, as well as what is known as political correctness. Political correctness flows over into public opinion. That is a sphere that can be developed and supported.

There are no simple courses. There is the well-known fantastic tale of when one law court in Russia declared the Quran to be an extremist work and banned it. You could do the same with regard to the Old Testament, where the blood flows in rivers.

It is a good thing that the Year of the Cultural Heritage of the Peoples of Russia has been proclaimed. It can be used to understand, without slogans and shouting matches, how traditional cultural values can be conserved in present-day conditions, while at the same time not killing off the good and interesting among what is new. The bad will die away and the good will grow. The main thing is not to cut it off at the root