We are living in an era when tourism is becoming a misfortune. In various cities demonstrations are taking place, telling tourists to “Go home!”. Venice, where tourism used to be encouraged, is now cursing it. A tax is being introduced there so as to restrict visitor numbers as far as possible. Barcelona has a ban on building new hotels; in Rome it is forbidden to sit on the famous Spanish Steps, while you can only get to the Parthenon by booking through the Internet… This gives Russia a competitive advantage.
In Saint Petersburg there are lots of tourists in the streets. Pleasant, smiling people. We are often asked how many foreign tourists there are in the Hermitage. We do not keep such statistics. The ticket price is the same for both locals and visitors. There is another statistic, though. While visitor numbers at the Hermitage are approaching the pre-pandemic level, the Russian Museum and Tretyakov Gallery, for example, are keeping on a par with it, which has never happened before. The explanation is simple: people are coming here who are interested in more than just the Hermitage and Peterhof. They are Russian citizens for the most part. They go to look at Russian art. That’s a good situation. Our city has more than just two or three visitor attractions “set in stone” – the Hermitage, Peterhof and, maybe, the Peter and Paul Fortress.
Culture can bring in money, but it has its own interests. In this respect, there is, as people were once fond of saying, a dialectical contradiction. The most obvious conflict of interest is when construction takes place at cultural monuments. Everyone knows that there is a service to protect monuments, and then there is the developers’ desire to turn a historical building into a source of profit. Arguments are going on over changes to the law on architectural monitoring of work on monuments.
For a long time passions were raging around the Exchange building. Contractors got changed, scandals blew up, the papers stoked fears that “The Exchange is sinking”. Commissions travelled out to check and persuaded themselves that nothing of the sort was happening. Now a new phase of the restoration is beginning. Again the contractors’ competitors will be writing that everything is being done wrong. You have to understand that there is the economics of culture and there is the construction sphere that has its own interests. Those do not coincide – that is obvious.
A favourite topic for the Hermitage is Palace Square. We understand that there are events which ought to take place on the square. With the aid of the city, we had regulations introduced for them, we sign agreements. Sound levels are almost always adhered to. There is nothing terrible about the square being turned into a theatre or a concert hall. So where is the tragedy? As soon as the celebrations begin, people appear who organize them. They have to spend a lot of money. They fence everything off, start building three stages at different ends of the square, set up marquees… Palace Square turns into a building site; people cannot get through to the Hermitage. Everyone took great offence, when we calculated the museum’s losses from one of these occasions. With every contract we sign, we argue that setting up should take not five days, but three, and take-down not three, but two… It’s an endless struggle.
In hot weather, when the square is empty, it’s attractive. Buskers play music, people walk around, sit on the ground. Many visitors want to take selfies on Palace Square – and they have a right to do so.
Shouting will get you nowhere. A compromise has to be found. For Palace Square, that should be based on the fact that the Hermitage is located here. That it is a monument to the war and heroes of 1812. The war galleries in the Hermitage educate people through examples from history. The memory of a tremendous event should be preserved. If we fail to recollect that this is sacred, then what patriotism can we talk about?
People travel to our city as families. While there are no big crowds, it’s a dream for tour firms. What usually makes up guided tours of the city? The standard episodes for tourists are “Here something was stolen, there someone got killed….” The city’s history is far more complex. There are topics that can be of interest.
Saint Petersburg has many historical buildings. We are often told that the Winter Palace was not built to be a museum. Indeed, it turned gradually into a centre of culture. The Winter Palace housed the Museum of the Revolution, mock-ups of bombs were displayed here, then they started exhibiting paintings… Today the Winter Palace is regaining palatial functions. Historical formal ceremonies are being held in the state rooms.
There are historical buildings that once housed factories, businesses, offices. A classic example is the General Staff building, where ministries, the Cheka, a prison, other organizations have been located. Then the Hermitage came along and we turned the building into a laboratory of modern-day museum practices, a place that tourists are becoming increasingly fond of. The older generation will go to the Winter Palace, young people to the General Staff building.
We have the remarkable New Holland complex, where warehouse premises have been turned into offices and places to spend your leisure hours in an educational and cultural way. On a fine day, you will find plenty of people outside there. Sevcable Port is another Saint Petersburg invention, with cafés, exhibition halls, a Museum of Street Art… The Levashovsky bread factory, a monument of Constructivist architecture, has after prolonged arguments been freed of its extensions. Now it is a cultural centre, where various functions are held, and a monument to the Siege with an interesting new display. The former Horse Guards Riding School has become a splendid exhibition hall with its museum collection and some striking cultural events. Tourists ought to be shown all of that. Saint Petersburg’s example of making use of historical buildings is instructive.
Church buildings are also used, both in Russia and in Europe. The Prado, for example. While in the south of France, museums of private collections are often housed in abbeys that the state confiscated from the Church and auctioned off in the 19th century. With us, a museum and a church co-exist in Saint Isaac’s Cathedral. The Saviour on the Spilt Blood is an example of museum usage of church premises.
The Exchange was built in the form of a temple. We intend to create a temple to Russian statehood there. Not long ago, the Hermitage’s traditional “Farewell to the White Nights” meeting with journalists was held in the central hall of that edifice constructed by Thomas de Thomon. It is to become a backup for the state rooms of the Winter Palace. As early as September, we plan to hold the Day of the Russian Guards there. People will know that we celebrate St George’s Day and the anniversary of the expulsion of the enemy from the borders of Russia in 1812 in the Winter Palace. The ceremonial hall of the Exchange building may become a setting for Saint Petersburg city events. It is more accessible than the St George Hall in the Winter Palace, and can blend into celebrations that have become iconic for the city: the Scarlet Sails, Navy Day, various marathon races… Those occasions bring particular meaning into Saint Petersburg’s life.
Mark Twain said that “History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.” Museums do away with stereotypes. We tell people in detail who Catherine was, what a great tsarina she was. As soon as we stop doing so, tour guides, from both this country and abroad, revert to the risqué tales about her. The rehabilitation of Menshikov is museum work too. He is the man who built Saint Petersburg in Peter the Great’s day. We rehabilitate Nicholas I, who created the Hermitage museum, rehabilitate Nicholas II, tell people what Nicholas and Alexandra were like. Stereotypes are being eliminated when it comes to Rasputin as well. The story of how he was poisoned in the Yusupov Palace is gradually giving way to an account of how a Bolshevik and religious revolution was building up in Russia.
The Siege is our great pain. Telling about that is very important too. There are various aspects to it, which need to be shown to those who come to visit us. The Candle of Remembrance on Palace Square is an event. When we read aloud the names of those who died in the Siege that is a fine and important thing to do. People from elsewhere need to witness this distinctive Petersburg feature as well.
Our city has some remarkable museums. The Museum of the Defence of Leningrad has been transformed; we have the splendid Brodsky Museum, a wonderful railway museum, marvellous Kronstadt, where it’s worth visiting the forts….
People also need to be told about how Saint Petersburg has grown. The story of the Lakhta Centre is significant. Citizens come out onto the streets when something threatens historical monuments. The protests against the construction of a skyscraper on the Okhta forces its removal elsewhere. The result was the appearance of one more, new, centre for the city – a bridge, a stadium and the Lakhta Centre. It appeared because the city decided that way. It is capable of deciding for itself, will not allow something grandiose to be built on the Okhta Cape. It was from the arguments that took place around the Hotels Angleterre and Astoria that present-day Saint Petersburg was born. That needs to be learnt, needs to be told. That is how to preach patriotism, a love of one’s country and a pride in it.
New meanings need to be invested in tourism to make it more complex. Then someone who comes to our city will not only admire the remarkable architectural monuments, but also take in Saint Petersburg’s history and culture, come to understand its distinctive features.
This material was published in the Sankt-Petersburgskie Vedomosti newspaper, №140 (7716) on 31 July 2024.
