Mikhail Piotrovsky’s speech at the session of the Council on Culture and Art

The cultural sphere marked the “ten days that shook the world” in a very fitting manner. For all that, however, we do have a problem in society that is coming to a head. There are tensions appearing in the triangle formed by the public, the cultural sphere and the authorities. I am talking about the moral-psychological climate as we used to say back in the old days. There is growing mutual distrust, irritation, inappropriate reactions and assessments, and it’s happening on all sides.

Paradoxically, strong bureaucratic regulation seemingly bolsters the power of the state, but as a result it leads on the contrary to the disengagement from the state, when there is a rejection of much that is associated with the state and it just becomes better to work without the state in various spheres, whether it be funding, patronage or monitoring.

Quite honestly, never before has the attitude to culture in society been as disparaging as it is now, especially in the social networks. We in the professional community, in the Union of Museums, conducted an analysis of everything that appears to us especially important. We have discussed and prepared a whole series of documents that, it seems to me, could provide a basis for the creation of a new law on culture. Because we see a pattern of unjustified expectations taking shape: everyone expects something that is not entirely realistic from everyone else.

And that pattern of incorrect mutual expectations derives from the invalid principle about which we have already spoken: when culture becomes a part of the sphere of social services; when we say and write that cultural institutions, museums, theatres, libraries were created to do things that are tasks of the state authorities, although matters are completely the other way around. And in actual fact it is we who work in the cultural sphere who should be correcting this. To do that there is a need to enact the principle of a certain social contract that arises with the aim of producing and reproducing benefits [blagi]. That is what should be enacted in the series of legislative initiatives that you were talking about.

There is the law on culture, the law on patronage, amendments to a number of laws that are already functioning. It’s necessary to introduce amendments that remove the cultural sphere from the scope of certain laws – which is specifically the sphere of social services. For example, we absolutely have to take all restoration away from the diktat of the construction complex. With us it is builders themselves who are actually proving to be the cause of very many building catastrophes in the cultural sphere. And there are a host of other laws, including even very simple ones that regulate the activities of museum staff, their travel, business trips and much else.

We have discussed this with the Union of Theatrical Workers and the Union of Museums in the Council on Culture at meetings. We are prepared, our creative professional unions are prepared in conjunction with the Council on Culture, in conjunction with the councils on culture of the State Duma, in the Federation Council, in conjunction with the Ministry of Culture, to play an active role in the drafting of the materials.

We need step by step to transform the customary paternalism of the state with regard to culture towards interaction. This social contact is interaction in which we exclude the interference of officials in the content side of creative cultural activity. That will make arguments about direct or indirect censorship on the part of state bodies baseless. At the same time, the professional communities that have been accorded greater powers will take upon themselves responsibility, including responsibility for the development of culture as a whole.

We understand that culture cannot exist without state support. Nevertheless, cultural institutions cannot be appendages of administrative bodies. Under the new state cultural policy that broadly is being discussed here, the state bodies should probably think of themselves more as helping the cultural workers and not the other way around, as is sometimes the case now.

Our culture is a complex thing made up of a host of diverse elements. And here it is important to think too about some new forms of legal incorporation for cultural institutions.

As we have all already persuaded ourselves there are such big differences between a theatre, a philharmonic society, a library and a conservatory that they simply cannot just be bundled together or treated all alike.

Culture is a unique tool. It connects past and future, provides for the handing down of traditional things from generation to generation and at the same time provides for the creation of new things. Culture is always creating something new, always breaking the rules somewhere, breaking them in a big way. That is inherent in it by definition.

And such significant results as the creation of benefits are the indicators of the cultural development of society that need to be talked about. They cannot be measured in any way. We keep trying to measure them in roubles, in hours, in audience sizes – that doesn’t work. It all proves deficient. We need new qualitative approaches to the assessment of effectiveness, which is also something we propose in our discussions. There are some materials here on how to assess the reputations of cultural institutions and figures.

We should revive the assertive character of our cultural activities inside the country and beyond. At one time we even spoke about cultural aggression everywhere, but now suddenly that has somehow slackened off. That applies to museum activities too.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, I often quote what you said at the cultural forum, during the meeting with culture workers, that culture builds bridges while politicians burn them… That is indeed a very good image, and such is the division of labour. We need help to preserve those bridges. We preserve them.

Culture is our competitive advantage and it needs to be developed to the maximum to “construct bridges”. We have priorities, of course, very important ones for such a cultural attack – Europe, the Middle East, China (where China is, Vladivostok is too) – and that project for a large cluster of construction in Vladivostok.

And one of the priority tasks is the restoration of cultural memory and Russia’s cultural presence in Syria. The sappers should be followed by restorers, museum specialists, tour operators, and they are indeed prepared.