Mikhail Piotrovsky: Expert Appraisal Is a Delicate Matter

The council’s purpose is to appraise and generate government initiatives and to shape a new generation of experts through working groups made up of people who have grown up and got their education in the post-Soviet period. They will not look backwards with nostalgia, will not look to the side and invent, as someone neatly put it, a wooden bicycle. Without reassessing what a neighbour has, you think up something similar for yourself, only your bike ends up being made of wood.

It is interesting to ponder the currently fashionable and much-used terms “expert” and “expert appraisal”.

The term “expert appraisal” implies something calculated in figures – the appraisal of a construction project, say. There is the concept of an “expert assessment” – the opinion of someone who possesses authority. True experts are people with enormous experience. They draw conclusions working with the numbers and can assess the result. We are talking about a high level of awareness of information, on the basis on which expert conclusions should be formed. The opinion of a computer and a human being can differ, however.

At the council meeting, people were saying that we do not need forecasts, but rather calculated risks and priorities.

It is important, whose opinion is being requested: the Academy of Sciences, the Kurchatov [Nuclear] Institute or the Hermitage. This last shows that, whatever we have been through in recent times, the significance of cultural institutions is rising in the country. There was discussion of a lot of things connected with culture, including the Pushkin Card. It was created so as to enable young people to go to museums and theatres. The Pushkin Card allows them not to get a ticket for free but to pay for one. They can each decide for themselves what to spend the money on and understand how much it costs.

This is what we have been talking about endlessly during the pandemic. We had to do away with some concessions. People started getting indignant – “That’s my due…” Concessions cost money; someone has to pay for them. The Pushkin Card explains that very well. Concessions should be introduced according to that principle: they are calculated, paid for and a person makes use of them. With an understanding that it’s not the same as just kicking the door open.

We said that the amount of money put on the card ought to be increased, and that the scheme should be extended to other categories of the population. The idea is splendid, but it does have its negative aspects. It’s difficult to organize. You have to deal not with the banks that already have a tried-and-tested system of checks, functioning turnstiles… As ever, a middleman bank appears. It is proposing contracts that, our lawyers believe, ought not to be signed.

As is customary with us, a large number of watchdog bodies appear. An expert board is formed that determines which events can be included and which cannot. Everything gets burdened with details. A system of checks is created to prevent anyone but the holder using a card. Separate portals appear that are meant to keep an eye on everything. A lot of hurdles need to be overcome.

In our city, a lot of building is being done by cultural institutions – the Mariinsky Theatre, the Maly Drama Theatre, the Conservatory, the Hermitage. Nowadays, we have a hard time working with contractors. On the one hand, we have walled ourselves off from them, trying not to hand over a kopeck more than necessary. On the other hand, the contractors cannot work without money. The payment system needs changing. A new flexible system is required, so that payments can be made without money getting stolen. We spoke about that at the meeting, and I hope there will be some improvements.

We build a lot, but now you have to pay property tax on any building that is not historical. It’s a good thing that the [Saint Petersburg] Legislative Assembly has established a 50% discount. There should be privileges for cultural institutions, in the financial sphere as well. That is what we approach the government with. During these pandemic years, it has provided compensation for cultural institutions.

Experts are needed to give an outside assessment of a situation. Experts should take responsibility for their statements, even before the law, if something goes wrong. In the sphere of art, people are scared to act as experts. If you go declaring that a picture was not painted by Leonardo da Vinci, you might get hauled into court for the moral damage that the owner suffered. You might win your case, but the expenses and court costs will still come to a pretty penny. Official expert art historians will take the risk because they charge fantastic sums for their expert opinions. The court costs are already included.

Expert appraisal is a delicate matter. Experts quite often argue amongst themselves. A few years ago, the museum hosted a conference devoted to Degas’s bronzes. There was discussion of the extent to which casts made from his designs or three-dimensional sketches can be considered an authentic work. If you acknowledge casts made later to be the genuine article, that puts one price on them; if you don’t, then the price is different. There is a wide range of opinions. Not everyone who was invited came to the conference; some were afraid to even take part in the discussions. There was no real debate.

At times, debate develops into a war between experts. One example in our city is the remnants of the Nyenskans and Landskrona fortresses discovered by excavations. As one website wrote: Saint Petersburg is at last looking to its Swedish past. The Ministry of Culture conducted expert appraisals. A few protected objects have been excluded, while the rest of the site can be built upon. The greater part of the land does have an owner. It is useful to discuss the problem calmly, without hysterics. These are fragile archaeological monuments. We have to decide what to do with them, who will be responsible for doing it, who will pay for everything. We need to think how to arrange things so that the owner of the land pays, after already funding the archaeological excavations. To convince them that they are not being driven away but rather invited to create an interesting public archaeological space. There is something to discuss.

People pop up who always seek to say something stark. Their line is that the President said it’s possible to create a park, so let’s do it. But the President said, “Look into it.” One set of experts go to court against another set, saying that nothing should be built on the land. To be honest, the result is an unseemly fracas. The objections are raised bombastically, with cries about saving “Petersburg’s Troy”. We hardly count as Troy. The Swedes are no Trojans, and nor are we. I have been observing this conflict for a long while. I shall say it again: the site is delicate – it is earth and wood architecture. Another three years exposed as it is now, and nothing will be left of it.

There is the opportunity to create something unusually Petersburg in character that would combine the archaeology and the use of the site. So far, that is not happening.

This is not the only intractable issue involving expert opinions. Speaking as an Orientalist, if you’ll forgive me, there is a bigger problem in the world. That is Palmyra, which was blown up by terrorists. Lots of people want to rebuild it. There are different proposals. UNESCO is taking small steps. The people there don’t like the existing regime in Syria. When the Aswan Dam was being built, nobody liked the Nasser regime either, yet an international campaign was set up to save the monuments. People realized that there are things more important than their attitude towards a regime.

Every time someone starts working on the monuments without a consensus, it causes arguments between experts and rows. It goes like this: “Let’s rebuild the Arch of Triumph.” – “It shouldn't be rebuilt, it should only be restored!” Syrian archaeologists, the world's best specialists in the restoration of ancient stone structures, our archaeologists and architects propose drawing up a plan so there won’t be an international fight between experts. We set up an international commission, which includes restoration specialists, so that projects relating to Palmyra are discussed by the professional community, then presented to UNESCO. If they are approved, the restoration can go ahead. That way there won’t be any scandals.

All the more so because the arch that stood in Palmyra and was pictured on the covers of textbooks is also a later replica. There were times when much of Palmyra was rebuilt. In Leningrad, too, after the war, ruined palaces were reconstructed, which runs contrary to the current principles for restoration. One example of brilliant modern restoration is the Agate Rooms at Tsarskoye Selo. What is needed now are clear-cut decisions: what will remain as ruins, where the authentic stones will fall into place. Where they are missing, fresh ones should not be added.

Experts have to come up with a consensus, otherwise each will insist on their own view and all of them will be right. There is no single solution: a compromise is needed. A compromise reached by a group of respected people who take responsibility.

The reliefs in Palmyra have been destroyed. They need to be restored, which is a lot of work. Getting to Damascus is difficult. We had an idea: Syrian reliefs were sent from Palmyra to an Arab country. Our restorers flew there and restored three reliefs. An exhibition will be held there, and the reliefs will be handed back to the Syrians. If we had brought them to Saint Petersburg, there would have been an outcry that the Russians were removing treasures from Syria.

Syrian Christian architecture is also in need of expert involvement. The team from the Academy of Sciences Institute of the History of Material Culture that made a 3D model of Palmyra is now creating 3D models of Christian sites in Syria. Some are badly damaged, others less so. An expert appraisal is based on a large amount of information. Every stone in the 3D model can be moved on the computer screen. A basis has been established that will allow experts to discuss restoration.

There is another difficult issue, but already on our own soil – Chersonesus. It is an amazing site that has suddenly revealed new potential. The military have vacated a large historic part of Chersonesus. Excavations have started there, and archaeological features have been uncovered. The excavations are being carried out in order to construct a museum complex, but you cannot build on the site of an archaeological monument. An expert appraisal has been carried out to define the boundaries of the red zone, and the areas where construction is possible. If the building does not fit, it will have to take a turn somewhere so as not to disturb the archaeological zone. Discussions are ongoing.

Archaeological sites are an attraction in themselves. At Chersonesus and Palmyra it used to be like that: excavations are taking place and people come to see what is being dug up, what is being reconstructed, what will become new museum exhibits.

There are laws and rules, and then there is reality. A compromise has to be found. The notion that clear-cut rules can be created for every case, and everything will be fine is an illusion. Compromise is possible for people who care about a cause, whose opinion matters now and in the future. They are willing to risk their reputations to make decisions. Not a quarrel but debates should lead to a compromise. The arguing should be done by experts totally detached from politics, both their own and other people’s, and from excessive emotion. Sometimes we forget that this is not about our own ambitions, but about the fate of the site. For the sake of its preservation, we should rein in our ambitions. This is what the pandemic teaches us – humility.