“Violating the integrity of a collection will lead to the ravaging of the museum fund”

As [our newspaper Kommersant] reported, French President Emmanuel Macron has taken a decision to return to African countries cultural treasure that found their way into the collections of French museums. The politician’s demonstrative gesture is evoking a mixed reaction from the worldwide museum community. Commenting on the causes and possible consequences of this initiative, Hermitage Director Mikhail Piotrovsky answered questions put to him by Sergei Khodnev.

– How do you regard President Macron’s initiative? How significant is it for the museum world as a whole?

– This initiative is political, of course, but people should understand that it is not only part of President Macron’s policy, but also a part of a larger process. That is bound up with the post-colonial syndrome, In France itself, the implementation of this initiative will seemingly mean the end of the Musée du quai Branly that only opened very recently and that in my opinion presented a splendid recipe for dealing properly with heritage of that type, as does the Paris-based Arab World Institute.
Any violating the integrity of a museum collection will lead to the ravaging of the museum fund per se – we went through that in the 1920s and again in the 1990s. In essence, everything that today we call restitution is manifestations of this post-colonial guilt syndrome. Everything that has been happening with us in recent years can also be attributed to the same thing: the plans for the redistribution of the Pushkin Museum and Hermitage collections for the sake of recreating the Museum of New Western Art, the arguments around the palace museums in the suburbs of St Petersburg, the case of the [icon of the] Virgin of Toropets, and other initiatives on the part of the Russian Orthodox Church. And the very fact that one single document can destroy the inviolability of a collection.

– Is it legitimate to equate problems bound up with French 19th-century colonialism and the situation with museums in this country?

– Post-colonialism has nothing to do with the 19th century. It is an emotional and intellectual state that began to be cultivated in society after the Second World War. In France it was more noticeable, it’s true, but in fact it’s a global process. It’s the stimulation of feelings of guilt, and that bidirectionally: either in oneself, or in others. It brings about a war of memories, in which culture becomes a bargaining chip and suffers as a result.

– Yet all the great imperial museums – including the Hermitage – can indeed be regarded as a legacy from the 19th century in particular.

– Such museums came into being in very different ways. But I would say that now the universal museum appears far more in accord with our own time and the needs of contemporary people. The local museum, the museum of national culture – that is a hangover from the 19th century.

– How, then, should universal museums react to the claims that are arising?

– In point of fact there are several different solutions. The first is the joint presentation and joint study of the relevant artefacts. The second is the creation of “satellite museums”, which both the Louvre and the Hermitage are engaged in. The third is the provision of special conditions for access to the repository for donor countries.

– Are there new demands that the Hermitage is encountering at the moment?

– No new ones are arising, fortunately. In the main they are continuations of old processes. Some things were transferred to national-level collections at the very end of the ’80s and in the ’90s, such as a ritual cauldron from Kazakhstan that had been removed to the Hermitage in the 1930s. Now problems are often solved by making copies – that is the case, for example, with the Genghis Stone from Transbaikalia and a number of other items. All solutions are found through cultural exchange. It’s a question of mutual trust and working together.