When the matter concerns scientific institutions, one recalls first of all academic and branch institutions and higher education institutes (although lately there have been restrictions in the line of a proper scientific work), however science also lives in archives, libraries, museums, as well as, in informal scientists’ communities. The registration of the world experience would add private corporations to that list. “The advanced science” opens the cycle of materials about existence of science in such places and forms, about which the government prefers to forget starting from the tasks of “regular” administration, and citizens may not know at all.
It was fortunate that the publication of our first conversation from this cycle contemporized with International Museum’s Day, because our interviewee is Professor Mikhail Piotrovsky, Director of the State Hermitage, Doctor of historical sciences. Mikhail Borisovich Piotrovsky is a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, full member of the Russian Academy of Art, deputy chairman of the President’s Council for Art and Culture. He is also chairman of the Union of Museums in Russia, professor of St. Petersburg State University, chairman of the tutorial board of the European University in St. Petersburg, president of Worldwide Club of St. Petersburgers. His scientific interests are: Arab and Islam culture and art, archeology of the Middle East and Yemen, ancient Arabic epigraphy, history of the World and Russian museum management studies and art collections. Interviewed by Natalia Demina.
Coming to our meeting, I saw how brides and bridegrooms took pictures in a sunny day at the Hermitage’s doors and put bouquets at the Atlantes’ feet…
That is such a Russian and St. Petersburg tradition when newly wedded on the day of their wedding drive around the memorable places. It’s very interesting to watch what historical monuments they visit. Today many young people get married in church, but all the same they come to “Bronze Horseman” – Peter the Great monument on Decembers’ square, The Church of Our Saviour on Blood, Point of Basil’s Isle, to those place which are pride of Russia, the part of our historic memory and this is very important. The Hermitage is an integral part of St. Petersburg’s atmosphere, that’s why young people come to the Hermitage’s atlantes. May be they don’t know who atlantes are and visit seldom the museum, but I saw more than once how the newly wedded come to the Hermitage the day of their wedding.
The newly married couples walk about the Hermitage, take pictures. It gives them pleasure as it’s one of the functions of the museum. Such a tradition is a part of the interaction of the Hermitage with society.
Quite often one can hear such point of view that science can be only in higher establishments and academic institutions? Is there science in museums in your opinion?
First of all there is science in museums and it must be so. It is occasionally said, that museum’s director must not necessarily be a scientist, that museums are not scientific institutions, but either an entertainment center or a place of rendering of services. In my opinion, the idea, that science must be only in scientific-educational establishments is not only wrong, but very harmful aimed at removing science from Russia. And the question is not about science reform. “Reform” in our country is such a fashionable word, as it was before “the bright future”. The matter is that such transformations will result in that museums will suffer or even that they will completely perish as serious culture establishments.
The issue that you’ve touched is very serious and completely true. This is a very fundamental and important question, which is at the front of the struggle for preservation of our culture. Culture in the past years has been the only convertible product. Certainly, besides oil and gas resources and arms.
Recently all Russian museums have passed through very strange procedure of changing their charters, as the result the clause scientific activity has been removed from the charters. We had to “struggle with teeth” asserting our right for scientific activity, and we have managed to retain this line of activity.
Who needed to change museums’ Charters?
The charters’ changes were carried out in connection with the reorganization of Ministry of Culture and mass communications, and then the foundation of the Federal Agency on culture and cinematography. Then the different games started – who will be in command of whom – simultaneously the charters were changing and they began to strike the clause scientific activity from the charters.
Our victory was, however, saddened by the fact that according to higher education legislation, there must not be post-graduate study neither in the Hermitage nor in other museums. Now one must obtain a special permission for post-graduate study. The officials say that museums “are not supposed” to have post-graduate study? But how can the Hermitage exist without post-graduate study?
If the clause about scientific activity will be struck off the charters, if museums will be disabled from having post-graduate study, the science will be gradually forced out of the museums. It’s disastrous for museums, because museum is first of all a scientific-research establishment. Even its depository is not simply a stockroom of samples, but a scientific depository.
Science must necessarily be retained in museums; it’s very tightly based on the museums’ collections. The whole activity in a good museum: preparation of expositions, storage of works of art is realized by scientist on a serious scientific basis. The results of their work they represent not only in the form of books, but in the form of constantly changed expositions.
The Hermitage was and still stays the biggest scientific institution in the field of study of art, the biggest centre of the Oriental study and the biggest archeological institute. The museum provides 15 archeological expeditions. There was a moment during the hardest years of Perestroika when the museum’s archeological activity was higher than one of the Institute of archeology.
In my opinion, museum is something between Temple and Disneyland, between sacral and non-sacral, and science abides in this span. People find both entertainment and inspiration in museums as well as sanctity of union with elevated art, but museums loose their main content without science.
To whom the Hermitage is now submitted?
It’s rather a complicated scheme, which they also try to “cut off”. We are submitted administratively to the Federal Agency of culture and cinematography. Financially – and every year we have to fight for that – we get money from the State budget as the Bolshoi Theatre. The part of our big building projects goes directly through the Ministry of Culture and mass communications, but not through Federal agency. Thus, we have several higher authorities.
We have kept as other museums, cultural institutions significant autonomy, but one must say that step by step this autonomy is being reducing. One of them is deletion of the clause about science. When we say: “Science is our essential activity. Above all we’re scientists, we’re a scientific-research organization. We create a scientific product, but not render a service”, they answer to us: ”Screw your scientific product, there will be no financing”. And all the time we have to struggle. When we are but autonomous, we can decide ourselves where to direct our earned money. Thank God, we have this right so far, but new amendments to the Budget Code can deprive cultural and scientific institutions of the possibility to spend freely off-budget money. Then this will be over...
It seems sometimes that the Hermitage and many other big museums – oases of culture - have not and must not have any financial problems.
Unfortunately, it’s not so, all museums have big problems with budgets, even the Hermitage. We have, certainly, a solid budget. It’s growing from year to year, much money is given by the state, there are substantial off-budget takings, but all this of course is not enough.
And what is the percentage of what the states gives and what you earn yourself?
60% is given by the state and 40% we generate ourselves: that is all together - what we earn on bookings, from exhibitions holding and what our sponsors give us free. Search for financial resources is a big problem. There is constantly a struggle for resources; and skill and freedom of using the off-budget resources have become the most painful point of the battle.
How is the level of scientific results evaluated in one or another museum?
The level of scientific results is always in the end evaluated by the scientific community. A great number of publications are issued in our museum – about 50 different books annually, among which are catalogues of temporary exhibitions and the most important part – scientific catalogues of collections. It’s a series of thick green beautiful books, 3-4 volumes issued annually. We also publish the “Works of the State Hermitage”, “Brief reports of the State Hermitage”. It’s the whole series of scientific works.
There are a lot of candidates and doctors of sciences in our museum; we pay for academic degree from off-budget means.
On what problems do specialists of the State Hermitage work?
First of all, it’s a study of Russian culture, history of mastering of Western culture in Russia, history of the Hermitage’s collections. We have just held an exposition of books devoted to history of collection of the great collector Petr Petrovich Semenov-Tyan-Shansky. He collected the Dutch painting and was one of the prominent connoisseurs of the Dutch painting in the world. He sold it later to the Hermitage at a symbolic price. We also have an interest in the Brulle, Kroze, Wallpaul and Llayd Brown collections becoming the basis of the Hermitage. It’s a history of how things came to the Hermitage.
It’s not simply the history of the Hermitage, but also the history of Russian culture. In my opinion, the Hermitage existence is one of a few signs of the fact that Russia belongs to Europe, whole generations of Russians saw this European art, accepted it and became to live with it as with their own.
Another our theme is Rembrandt and Dutch painting. There is a splendid collection, the best outside Holland, of drawings, paintings of Rembrandt and other Dutch painters.
The employees of our museum are engaged in history of West European art, in particular, study of the creative work of impressionists and post-impressionists - Mane, Picasso, Matisse and others, whose works appeared in the Hermitage thanks to Schusev and Morozov.
The huge theme studied in the Hermitage is the history of Silk Route, the ancient civilizations along the Silk Route from China to the Mediterranean region. One more of our themes is – barbarians on the borders of the Hellenic world (Scythians and other nomads). The Hermitage takes part in archeological expeditions, publishes books and the leading specialists in these fields work in it.
The employees of the Hermitage are engaged in the study of history and culture of the North Black Sea region, the Greek civilization on the South of Russia. Museum carries out archeological digs, organizes exhibitions and publishes books. Just now we are opening an exposition in Paul Getty museum in California devoted to culture in the North Black Sea region and the Hermitage’s explorations there.
Studies on Middle Age Orient, Islam art are also in the sphere of our interests. We’ve just opened an exhibition of Iran art in Amsterdam.
Hidden treasures of coins on the territory of Russia - is one of the most interesting themes studied during centuries in the Hermitage.
Already during several centuries the specialists of the Hermitage reflect upon one of the eternal questions: the role of Varangians in the formation of Russian state. In his time Director of the imperial Hermitage S.A. Gedeonov wrote of the fundamental works regarding these discussions (“The Varangians and Russ”, St. Petersburg, 1876), aimed against the Norman theory, and on the other hand the museum’s employee, senior curator of the Hermitage, member of archeographic commission, Academician A.A. Kunin carried on polemics with him. We are preparing now a big conference on this theme.
Didn’t historians, archeologists come to the definitive answer to this question?
It seems to me, that there will not be an answer to the question about the role of Varangians in the history of Russia. This is an example of the discussion as a part of culture, when new information appears about the difficulty of the processes that have taken place and the deep understanding of historical realities is born. The decisions appear as a result of such discussions that seem to be correct at the time, but will be possibly revised in the future.
One of the others immense themes which should be mentioned, is the museum’s pedagogics, work with children. It comprises both practical activity and preparation of scientific publications on how a museum’s work with children must be built, how we understand people’s society through museums’ pedagogics.
There is an excellent classroom for children with poor eyesight where they study archeology with their hands rather than with eyes. In our stock-depositary there is a classroom for children with weak hearing. A special programme of work with difficult and unusual children is elaborated in the Hermitage.
We also take an active part in charitable projects. Yesterday we held an auction, in the course of which, many beautiful doings were being sold for child institutions. I sold there a lion gypsum sculpture from our Hermitage’s yard for 200 thousand rubles, the whole receipts will get to the Charity Fund “Warm home”, which tries to lighten the life of disadvantaged children.
Does the practice exist of conducting lessons for children within the precincts of the museum?
Such lessons are being conducted constantly. Our primary and main visitors are children. Our school centre on the work with children is one of the world’s famous centres where circles are conducted, and methodical work with teachers is kept. We have a special children’s computer gallery.
How much does the season ticket for child’s education in this centre cost?
The education is free of charge, but there is a contest before the entrance to the Centre, where the child’s abilities and motivation to study in one or another circles are assessed (that he was not simply led by the hand by his parents, but he wants himself to study). We try to judge objectively – occasionally even children of the Hermitage’s employees can not pass this contest.
In general the Hermitage is one of the less expensive museums in the world, it takes a nominal price from foreigners, and the Russians pay 100 rubles. It’s insignificant comparing with the pleasure that the art access gives. For children, students and pensioners the entrance is free of charge. One day weekly is free of charge for visits. I often broadcast on the radio in St. Petersburg and more than once heard the phrase: “I can’t afford to visit the Hermitage…” People even don’t get around to finding out the real ticket price. I answer at times: “Bring your child and you can stay outside yourself, if you grudge to spending 100 rubles”.
We have an awful society. Yes, many people have a difficult life, but one must choose priorities. For children museum is more important for example than a car. If a man has a single kopeck he must first of all bring his child to museum and then buy everything else.
Is it necessary, from you point of view to introduce the young generation into the particularly modern art, exactly as to the art, but not the form of protest behaviour?
We name many things as “protest”: “protest behaviour”, “protest action” – and this is an interesting phenomenon of our society. I would like the time to come, when actions in defense of culture were not considered as “protest”. Under the Soviet power all actions held in defense of architectural monuments were considered as anti-soviet. May be somebody did not care about the architecture and just needed a cause to oppose the Soviet power – I can not judge. But now everything begins slipping to the protest actions. One ought to do so, that all forms of culture preservation would not bear forms of protest actions, when parties are divided into those or others, sometimes use force and both are equally “good”. Only beyond this framework of opposition something positive can be created.
The same thing is with contemporary art. The sense of the Hermitage, of its expositions consists in showing that there is no difference between contemporary and old art. Not everybody agrees with me, but I’ve got a slogan, that there is no difference between Potter’s dog and Picasso’s cat (paintings “Watchdog Chained to his Kennel” by Dutch painter P. Potter (October 1650-1652) and “Cat Seizing a Bird” (1973) – ND). We must show it. In fact, children and all people who know classical art well understand contemporary art as well. Now and then they ask: “What is the sense in Malevich’s “Square”?” In my opinion, if a man doesn’t understand what Malevich’s “Square” is, he doesn’t understand who is Rubens. All this is an integral part of art. Exactly the same is with the icon. It seems that it has nothing to do with art. They close it with a setting and pray to God on it. But it can be received and it is perceived as a part of art. Art has flexible and changing borders.
If we are talking about protest actions, what is your critical position regarding “Gazprom City”? What, in your opinion, the debates concerning the construction of a skyscraper in the historical city centre will result in?
I don’t have any critical position regarding “Gazprom City”, but have a positive one. I consider that we need the second city – new St. Petersburg, as the historical Petersburg is already suffocating. The historical part is perishing, it needs to be saved. A big deal of terrible buildings was built in it. The city practically looses its historical look and the attraction it had before. One should try to use the situation when big money has gushed from Moscow for creation of the second city – city where all great architects will build marvelous buildings. It would be better, if the projects of new buildings were determined not in the course of contests where the most banal things are chosen. Let every architect to be given a piece of land and said what should be built according the general layout: theatre, office building…
All new constructions must go away from the historical centre. Everybody is beating around it, but it is so tiny. It’s such a primitive privilege – to come and sprawl out with dirty boots on the clean carpet. And they are not talking about the construction of something remarkable (as the choice of Gazprom’s skyscraper shows). It’s a terrifying provinciality. What would it cost to set this skyscraper a little bit aside? And there will be no problems and protests. A wonderful city can be built on the Okhta, but one should bear in mind, that there must be a city, but not something that nobody likes, that is built to spite everybody.
They like to speak in this connection about the Eiffel Tower. First of all, the Eiffel Tower as it was deformity is still deformity now. It’s ugly and it spoils the capital of France. But Paris is similar to Moscow. When the pyramid was built in the Louvre museum, I heard the comments: “What is that?” And I answered: “In the city where there is the Eiffel Tower whatever one likes can be built”. When Osman was building new Paris, he had pulled down the old city; only a small part remained of it. Then the skyscraper was built on Monmartre, and now the question is being discussed about its abolition. When the new architecture came, the Paris’ authorities reflected on it, considered their mistakes and have built the block of buildings Defence located aside. It can be seen from far, it perfectly exists and there is a new architecture in it. This is an example how it should be done.
One should build the new, but with aesthetic benefits for the city. That must be decided by people who have taste. In the whole world the skyscrapers are being pulled down from the city centre where they stick up and rise above it. Thus, in Isfakhan, a blood brother of St. Petersburg, once a skyscraper has been built, which is pulled off now. The skyscrapers should not be built in the historical cities centre.
The idea with new St. Petersburg seems to be rather interesting.
It’s an old idea. They tried to realize it several times. In Moscow the City was built where everything goes well together.
But unfortunately, in Moscow the historical centre is also being destroyed and people also protest against it.
It’s difficult and hard in Moscow. But now many people in Moscow say with pleasure: “It seems that it’s worse at your place than at ours”.
Returning to the museum tell us, please, what are general criteria of the presence of one or another work of art in exposition or the Hermitage’s storerooms? Who decides where will be that or another picture?
It is decided every time differently, because the museum is both storeroom and exposition together. One should not think that a storeroom is such a warehouse. The main museum’s scientific work is carried out in storerooms. A curator not only describes every thing, but studies, compares, dates and attributes it. And there comes a moment when the thing must appear in exposition.
There are different criteria. Firstly, many things – drawings, fabrics, costumes don’t like light, they can not be constantly in expositions. They can be exposed only in temporary expositions. There are also things that “play” only when they are included in the context of the temporal exposition. For example, at the exhibition “Alexander the First, when the set of his things is exposed, every thing has something in common with another. It doesn’t worth to exhibit these things constantly, it will be boring. Things are grouped on different principles and then can be placed for a long time in the storeroom.
There are works of art of the foreground in permanent expositions, but this foreground is different in different epochs. It may only seem that all authorities are set up long ago. The notion “the great painter” is changing constantly. One great turns to be not so great and vise versa. Now, for example, the whole world is going crazy with Karavadjo’s paintings. He is, certainly, in all books, but still recently his works were appraised not so expensive.
What is the cause of changes in such “fashion”?
Tastes are changing, and museum’s exposition must be in accordance with the epoch’s and people’s requirements. For example, we have a splendid collection of marble statues by Antonio Kanova. Not long ago his works were considered as “trash” – they said it was shameful to show such primitive classicism. But today people are so tired of rough modern art uncovering and pulling out sometimes everything bad, that now everybody “prays” to Kanova.
It was considered indecently, in the days of my youth, to be interested in the Ilya Repin’s paintings. They said: “There is modern art. And what is there Repin? Is he a painter indeed?” And now there are queues for Repin’s expositions, and not only in Russia. The fashion for illusionist art is going off, there appeared a necessity in realistic art.
A number of things appears, not from the foreground, which begin to “play”. One begins to say: “Look, what a remarkable French painter Lui Valta”. But nobody knew precisely about him earlier. His paintings appear on the museum’s walls for some time. This is a dynamic process, and it doesn’t mean that if the paintings were picked up, it’s forever.
There is a big deal of things that serve only for scientific purposes. It can be said about considerable part of archeological materials, numismatics (it’s impossible to show all coins, all the more, the stamps of the same year are equal). However all this, that is uninteresting, most likely, for visitors, is an unbounded field of action for the Hermitage’s employees – this is both library and immense archives which a researcher uses and studies.
In my view, the museum’s art must keep balance between what ought to be necessarily shown to people (not very much and so that it was not boring) and what the epoch chooses. At first, one should feel people’s interest at the temporary expositions and then transfer some of the exhibits to the permanent exposition.
One more thing is very important. There must necessarily be a rotation in the museum. It’s clear that Leonardo da Vinchi paintings must be always exhibited. But we send many paintings to the exhibitions in different parts of the world, and there places are taken up by other paintings. That’s why the Hermitage can be visited eternally. I remember, when I was a schoolboy and a student, there was practically child’s game to see what has appeared of new or prohibited earlier in the museum – Kandinsky’s paintings or anything else.
I consider that everything should harmonize and be dynamic in the museum. They say in all disputes about architecture: “But it’s impossible to live in the city-museum. And I answer: “It is possible”. Because a real museum is a very dynamic structure that easily adapts itself to the time, imposes itself to the time, it can earn money and give pleasure – whatever one likes. One should only learn to live in such city-museum. One can live very well in it, much better than in the city-factory, city-shipyard or city-stock exchange.
Unfortunately, buildings can not be transferred to the storeroom.
The historical part of St. Petersburg should stay as a permanent exposition.
Does the Hermitage cooperate now with institutes of higher education? How productive is this cooperation? What does the benefit of such cooperation consist in?
We cooperate extensively with institutes of higher education, and this cooperation is a natural process. New employees come to work with us after graduating these institutes. Having become certified specialists, they pass in the Hermitage the next stage of education. It’s difficult just to come and start working in our museum. A restorer must learn to work with hands on the Hermitage’s things, a guide to learn the Hermitage’s style of conducting excursions, an art critic – the Hermitage’s style of studying art, an archeologist learn an experience of archeological expeditions. That’s why it’s so important to prepare student beforehand for that.
It’s very important that people studying in St. Petersburg should grow on the Hermitage collections, and the access to them was through the museum, through the museum’s participation in educational process. Many our employees give lectures in the Academy of Sciences, in St. Petersburg State University, at the School of baron Stiglitz (Stiglitz's Central School for Technical Drawing - ed.), they are professors of these universities. I’m myself a professor of St. Petersburg State University.
One of the directions of our activity in the sphere of education – it’s the European University. I’m not only the chairman of the tutorial board here, but together with the European University of St. Petersburg we have founded the chair of art history where a lot of our colleagues work. The whole teaching process is based on the Hermitage’s collections, the lectures are given in the Hermitage’s halls and depositories. We organize together summer schools, devoted to the Hermitage’s treasures.
The second direction – is the chair of museum management studies and monuments’ protection at the Philosophical Faculty of St. Petersburg State University. I’m at the head of it. The system of courses devoted to the monuments’ protection was created at the chair, and that is also powerful means for communication with museums. The chair is based on three main collections – that of the Hermitage, of the Russian Museum and the Russian Ethnographical Museum. This work also allows us to maintain close connection with museums and museums’ employees. And it’s very important, because museums management studies is such science which can separate and live separately from museums. There are a lot of people in Great Britain who write thick books without being relevant to museums. In our country, thank God, it’s not so and that is exactly thanks to the activity of the museums’ employees who actively participate in the teaching process.
Lectures in institutions of higher education are an important part the Hermitage’s employees’ work. Culture, education and science are indivisible. When officials try to systematize it and scrupulously separate to its constituent parts, sort of here is science, there is educational process and there – museums…
May be it’s easier to lead in such a way?
It’s easier only for small leaders to lead in such a way. Of course, officials on the lowest level also want to lead. Perhaps, such division simplifies their work. Some time the district committee of CPSU also tried to lead the Hermitage, defining what is to be done and what’s not. If to draw such tough boundary lines between indivisible things – there will be a catastrophe.
They speak, sometimes, about the crisis in Russian science and education, downfall of professionalism, problems in personnel reproduction, “brain drain”. Did you become aware of these processes in your museum and is there any problem in succession and transfer of experience, knowledge, traditions?
I think that everything is not so. First of all there is not any loss of professionalism. On the contrary, working in the Hermitage and in Academy of sciences (I’m a historian - orientalist, corresponding member of Russian Academy of sciences), I see what is happening in our science. The humanitarian level was always high in our country, it is high now and thanks to the opportunity of communication with the western world it has still risen. I don’t have any reproaches upon our young specialists – we have remarkable young scientists, they work perfectly, write interesting articles and books.
“Brain drain” is a fiction, the heritage of the “iron curtain”. We live now in the world where all people move around and they must move, and “brains” also must travel here and there. In my opinion, the best strategy in conditions of the economic crisis is to give education to the young scientists here, send them to the West so that they could make a couple of discoveries in western laboratories that we don’t possess so far and create such conditions for them that they wanted to return.
But the problem consists in the fact that the scientists don’t want to return.
I would not say so. I see that they want even very much. Another thing, that some of them needn’t return, because they earn only on Russia’s knowledge. In fact, enough many scientists return. Several of the most outstanding researchers of the Hermitage have worked in the West and returned. And the matter is not only in money. They can earn money living here. It’s necessary that it should be interesting for them. And this is quite more delicate thing than “brain drain”. Let them flow, the main thing that they flew back as well as others.
And how make them flow away and flow back?
It’s necessary that our life here would be interesting for them, and that is also one of the museums’ tasks. Museums create such a cultural atmosphere when it is pleasant for people to live. Museums, as well as the culture in general, helped us in the most difficult moments when many people simply did not want to live.
What does the specificity of art criticism as a science consist in? Can one consider an art critic as a historian, culture critic and artistic critic all-in-one? What is the correlation between art criticism and culturology? Between art criticism and artistic criticism? How to distinguish real art criticism from usual criticism with its “oh” and “ah”?
It’s a good question. I’m not an art critic, but I know well what the history of culture is. In my view, art criticism is a part of history, that’s why the art critic is always a little historian, a little linguist. Not in vain a single History-philological department exists in Academy of sciences, to read texts one needs to know languages. Art criticism is both study of history and study of art influence as a part of the world culture.
It certainly differs from artistic criticism with its “ah” and “oh”. Where is the boundary? The work in museums shows that one can speak “ah” and “oh”, one can discuss angels and gods or one can laboriously study the works of art: having paintings, write about them. When a man has measured, sized up everything, when he knows how the composition is built, what is the history of creation of a picture or sculpture, he can theorize seriously. It’s a great advantage of the museums’ employees - they are working with things, they know what they are talking about, only then it results in science.
What are the criteria of scientific character in art criticism?
The main criterion is knowledge of the subject, of the material. Art critic knows everything in his sphere of research: about coins, pictures, sculptures, shards and so on. He makes carefully approved scientific catalogues. This is firstly. Sometimes a man can go not further than that. It’s already science. But there is also the next stage of science when general culturology conclusions are being done, the history of culture and culture of another nation is being built. The ability of reasoning, general philosophical literacy is required here. On the third level is already the community of experts, if they consider that you belong to their guild and the result achieved by you is scientific, it means you are a scientist, if not - then not.
What is your attitude, as a corresponding member of the RAS, to science reform and the confrontation between administration of the RAS and Ministry of education and culture?
As a member of the Academy I consider, that the Academy must be conserved and believe it will be conserved. The Academy as well as the museum is flexible. There are different requirements of the time and now time requires changes. The Academy doesn’t want changes, but changes will take place. The result of confrontation will be normal, what has been needed. In my view, discussion is always useful, the same as with monuments’ preservation: somebody wants them to be abolished and somebody struggles for leaving them. As a result there must be what it’s necessary.
The Academy is an absolutely great invention. There is no such an Academy in the world. It was created in our country in the epoch of totalitarian regimes when it was hard for thinking people to survive. The same regime has created a “reservation” for scientists’ life where they got special privileges and were well preserved in this “zoo” as a kind. In such a way the Russian science has been survived. They say sometimes that such regime is similar to the fascist one. I don’t agree with that. It’s not similar, because although it was hard to live in this mechanism, but Shostakovich and other great scientists and poets existed.
The Academy as correctly organized system of such “reservation” of thinking people was necessary in the times of totalitarian ideological pressure. Now we experience a colossal money pressure. To disperse science with the help of money - is nothing to do. There is no big difference where scientist creates something brilliant, here or in America, but if scientist leaves the science sphere, it’s as a rule, for ever. When brains leave for business it’s a tragedy. I think that struggle taking place now is needed and correct. It was born by the time and takes sometimes sharp forms, but I don’t doubt that the principle of the Academy will win. The Academy’s system will be changed somewhere, will tune up somewhere, will be cunning somewhere.
Are you an Internet user and have you got your personal web-site?
I work with Internet as a user and don’t create my personal web-site. I don’t use e-mail as I consider e-mail to be an amoral form of communication. E-mails are sent only to my secretary and only in the form of big texts, because, in my view, the letter without hand-written signature is not a letter, it’s too easy to write it. I don’t like the superfluous speed of Internet-messages either, when you have to answer immediately.
We certainly have to use all modern technologies, but it’s important to understand, that we use them, but not live in them. We mustn’t live in them and mustn’t live for them, as a book in paper is better in any case than its electronic variant. It’s all the same, the main bearer of information for our work is paper, and all computer catalogues are only our helpers of a quick search for information and nothing more. The computer technologies are changing very fast and we know a lot of examples when the access to the information on the electronic bearers can be lost. Thus, in the American White House they can’t read the information recorded in Nikson’s times, and one must not forget about that.
Internet is disgusting in many senses and our task is to perfect it. Our publications on the web-site, Internet-conferences with public, multimedia catalogues of the Hermitage collections are aimed at its perfection, at bringing in it something good and pure besides dirt and pragmatism. And here in Internet the Hermitage also has field of struggle for culture.
In this July there will be 15 years from the moment you has become the Hermitage’s director (July 1992). What were these years for you? How they have changed you?
In my opinion, they have not changed me. Only the number of books in my study has increased. 15 years is rather a long period full of impetuous events in the history of our museum. I don’t sum up so far. I hope that these years have not changed me, especially for the worth, although at such post one can become embittered or grow proud. It seems to be that nothing has changed in me by the highest standards and it means that I was corresponding with this position from the very beginning.
I try my best for changes and innovations would not alter the essence and spirit of our museum. The Hermitage – it’s like a historical city, which is interesting with all that is taking place in it and with what it’s remarkable. We try to create new things. Our museum is, possibly, the most innovative by the level of innovations, but we have to keep traditions. I try not to change myself, all the more, I know traditions. My father was the Hermitage’s director and I knew several generations of directors. The Hermitage is for me a native home and native world, where I live.
I would like to express my gratitude to Revekka Frumkina and Yury Nesterov for their assistance in preparation for the interview.