Mikhail Piotrovsky. Why we need the flexibility of nomads

Recently we had a session of the State Council’s working group on cultural matters. Many issues were discussed, including how to emerge from the pandemic.

There are several things that follow on from the changes that have taken place in our life in the past months. At the meeting we talked about remote working. In the 21st century, that makes sense for many occupations. The theory is clear, but the practical question arises of how to monitor and reckon the work. Unless we get that organized, the end result could be dreadful.

The online activities that are popular today are also bound up with monitoring. They have replaced real-life visits to cultural institutions and will not disappear when everything settles down. How do you reckon that as part of a museum’s work? It is obvious that simply counting visitor numbers as before will not happen.

These practical matters are important for the preservation of the useful innovations that have appeared. To that end they need to be put into a legal framework.

Another meeting was held by Saint Petersburg’s strategic planning group that is headed by the Governor. The discussion there was about resuming the activities of the “Open City” programme. The name has a double meaning. On the one hand, there is the city being accessible to everyone. On the other, the inhabitants should be aware of what is taking place in the city.

Above all, it is necessary to grasp what openness means in the present situation. Undoubtedly it means many restrictions, Today they are prompted by sanitary requirements, but they might then become a habit. There are already contradictions now.

How is the concept of an “open city” compatible with its parks being closed? Our colleagues from the museum-preserves were asking for the parks to be opened. People can keep far away from one another there. Nevertheless, the sanitary requirements, the firm stance of the sanitary doctors, prevents the parks from being opened. Access to open spaces is being restricted.

Obviously, museums will be restricting visitors’ access. Only a small number of people will be able to get in and they will have to remain spaced out. Set routes need to be planned. We are busy on that, trying to work out how people will go around the Hermitage. There were discussions, intentions to divide the museum into parts, but then we decided after all to make a general tour the basis. Each visitor will be able to go through the Hermitage around the perimeter. One way or another, fixed routes will have to be planned out.

Tickets will have to be bought in advance over the Internet. That, too, will restrict the flow of people to museums, theatres, cinemas… The 21st century is the era of the mighty Internet. Before going anywhere, you will have to plan ahead and make a booking. How is that compatible with openness? That is just a small part of how our life will be shaped.

Arrangements will need to be worked out for the interaction between cultural institutions and the people who visit them, between the city authorities and the inhabitants. The solution to the situation lies above all in the flexibility of decision-making. Decisions need to be planned well in advance but taken quickly. Nomads had that sort of flexibility. They changed their direction of movement when a different situation arose. We need to be prepared to alter existing plans and routes, so that interactions become flexible.

We have long had direct contacts and feedback. People complain if they do not receive a service or are dissatisfied with its quality. They get an answer. The old tug-of-war approach, whether between the Hermitage and its visitors or the city authorities and inhabitants. As a rule, the result is a confrontation, an argument over who’s in the right. That is what social interactions are constructed on. But they could be constructed differently, on mutual creativity. I think that is the right term. Mikhail Yefimovich Shvydkoi used it when speaking about the theatre and audiences.

Mutual creativity envisages various means of settling a problem. Means that are born out of debate.

An example of particular relevance to me is the study of people’s reactions to the Hermitage’s online programmes. People don’t like something and write about it; the museum replies. In the social networks, when responding to a programme, people begin to debate with one another. Sometimes the discussions are abstract, about Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, for example, or the monarchy… I read them and can see that when we press a certain “button” it generates discussion from which the museum can glean something useful, for its decision-making too. It’s something other than the direct contacts and feedback that do not work very well.

That could happen at the city level, too.

Many people are worried that the city might lose Lenfilm. I don’t have a deep grasp of the financial problems that are the reason behind it, but it is obvious that upon losing the studio the city will descend to a different level.

People are writing letters, appealing to the authorities… A debate is capable of prompting discussion of alternative solutions. Not in the sense of “We’ll come out, form a human chain and not let it be touched.” Open discussion can become an example of mutual creativity, when the authorities adopt ideas from the public.

There are ideas among the masses that can be accepted. In the numerous discussions that are going on at the moment over the pandemic, internationally as well, it is not just professionals that are proposing solutions. Some might be taken up. I have always said that diversity is splendid. Models can emerge that become part of the life of society. Because society needs that.

We have many things ahead of us to resolve. Psychologically we will be trying to return to our old ways. I don’t think that will work. Ahead lies an interesting period of discussions and attempts to determine what will be going on in our new life. How restrictions and openness will be combined. The selection of models is now underway.

Museum life has seen the realization of some long-cherished dreams. Staff members were dreaming of an empty museum as it was suffering from crowds of visitors. Right now, no-one is there at all.

A long-cherished dream for visitors was a museum without queues. Now the queue will move to the Internet, everything will be well-ordered. This approach is entirely suitable for tourists who plan out their time in advance. It is unlikely to suit that portion of the public who visited the museum at the dictate of the heart and not some tourist schedule. The restrictions will be a burden to them.

The Hermitage is chaotic. That has always been one of its charms: buildings in different styles, art from different eras, the Rembrandt halls, the halls of Italian art… Everything is jumbled up, without any chronology. Everything is constructed on chaos, and there’s no great desire to struggle against it. Now we will be missing that. I hope that the chaos will return soon in a new guise. That’s what flexibility is.