SPATIAL EVOLUTION OF A MUSEUM BUILDING: A CASE OF THE STATE HISTORICAL MUSEUM
Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Leicester
by Anna Mikhailova MA School of Museum Studies University of Leicester
September 2017
Abstract
Spatial Evolution of a Museum Building: A Case of the State Historical Museum in Moscow
Anna Mikhailova This thesis contributes to the modern understanding of museum architecture, by exploring the relationship between a museum as an organisation and its physical form of the museum building. By choosing the spatial transformations at the State Historical Museum in Moscow as a case study, it introduces Russian museum practices into international museological context. The thesis analyses the planning and construction stages, as well as two major renovations that took place in significantly different political contexts: Imperial Russia, the Soviet Union and the modern democratic Federation.
Applying a micro historical approach and a facility management lens offers an insight into the complexity of the processes that shape the physical space: its sensitivity to internal and external agencies and multiple contexts, such as the urban built environment; the political climate and the economy; museum trends; and the professional community. The building itself, once completed or at earlier stages, becomes another actor in the equation.
An in-depth analysis of the events in question reveals the elaborate nature of the production of space, and demonstrates the importance of professional communication and interpersonal relationships that can impact the institution, both positively and adversely. The attitudes to the Museum, demonstrated by different governments over the years, offer an insight into how a central location can be viewed as a bigger asset than the institution itself and discourage it from independence, both organisationally and spatially. The history of the SHM, and the multiple improvements it required over less than 150 years of functioning, serve as evidence of the importance of planning and foresight.
1 Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I would like to thank the School of Museum Studies at the University of Leicester for providing me with a space that encourages deep and theory-grounded investigation into the issues museums have faced, as well as those they are encountering now, and might in the future. I am thankful for my supervisor, Professor Suzanne MacLeod’s patient, thoughtful and strategic direction, and copious feedback, and my second supervisor Dr Lisanne Gibson’s insightful and thought-provoking comments.
I am eternally grateful to the State Historical Museum staff and administration for their full cooperation, especially for opening their archives to me and consulting on the best strategies to approach the data, as well as for being open to sharing their knowledge and opinions in interviews. I would like to personally thank Alexey Levykin, Marina Chistyakova, Maria Lemigova, Irina Klushkina, and Alexander Shkurko.
I would also like to express extreme gratitude to people without whose contribution and support the present thesis would not be possible: my parents Vadim and Larisa and my husband Michael for generous support and advice, Asya and Andrzej Ageyski for perceptive comments and enlightening conversations, Dr Amy Hetherington for considerable encouragement and proofreading, and Anna Leshchenko for sharing her deepest love and knowledge of academic books.
2 Table of contents
Introduction 5 The Structure of the Thesis 16 Chapter 1 18 The Emergence of Museums and Museology in Russia 18 Imperial Russia 18 Soviet Russia 21 Modern Russia 25 Chapter 2 31 Literature Review and Theoretical Framework 31 Museums as a Specific Type of Public Building 33 Museum Building as a Case for Micro Historical Research 38 Soviet Research on Museum Architecture 43 Museum Building as a Manageable Facility 48 Summary 64 Chapter 3 69 Methodology 69 Critical Microhistory 69 Overview of Sources 78 Archival Research 79 Primary Sources 80 Secondary sources 85 Interviews 89 Summary 91 A microhistory of spatial transformations as a route to institutional understanding and reflection 91 Chapter 4: The Conception and Early Years of the SHM: Finding the Forms for a National History Museum 93 The Earliest Proposals for a Museum of Russian National History 94 The Polytechnic Exhibition 97 Establishing Museums in Russia 101 The SHM and the Polytechnic Museum 102 Late 19th century Moscow as a built environment 106 Designing the SHM 113 Construction Stage 120 Summary 126
3 Chapter 5: The Renovation of 1937: Re-evaluating the Quality and Ethics 128 The SHM and Early Soviet Cultural Policies 129 Museum Network 132 Theorising Museum Work 134 The Orthodox Church 136 Other Innovations and Policies 139 The 1920s-1930s Moscow as Urban Context 140 SHM Reorganisation and Renovation in 1936-1937 146 Andrey Burov 148 The Renovation and Its Interpretation 150 The Pushkin Exhibition 160 Summary 164 Chapter 6: The Reconstruction of 1986-1997: An Architectural U-turn 167 The SHM before the Renovation of the 1980s 168 WWII and Its Impact on the SHM 168 The 1950s: Further Spatial Changes in the Permanent Exhibition 172 The Red Square as the Urban Context for the SHM 176 Soviet Architecture and its Ideological Role 178 Monument Preservation Movement in the USSR and Its Impact on the SHM 181 The Renovation of the 1980s 186 The Main Organisations Involved in the Renovation 187 The Concept of the Renovation 189 The Role of Informal Communication 190 Preparing Documentation for Government Inspection 191 Other Issues Faced by the SHM Administration 194 The Final Stage of the Renovation 199 Summary 206 Chapter 7: Conclusion 210 Bibliography 220
4 Introduction
This thesis explores the physical shaping and reshaping of the State Historical Museum (SHM) in Moscow from its conception to establishment in 1872 and up to the 1990s. Located in the very heart of Moscow on Red Square (fig. 1), the SHM finds itself in proximity of such tourist attractions as the Kremlin, the Lenin Mausoleum, and St Basil’s cathedral (fig. 2). Since its opening in 1883, the red brick building of the SHM has gone through two major renovations, while the organisation within its walls has also experienced significant transformations driven by both internal choices and changes in the life of the country. Following previous research which has illustrated how spatial analysis can be revealing of institutional development, the thesis explores the relationship between the SHM’s architectural and spatial past and the museum as an actively functioning facility that was developing over the years as a result of complicated multi-party decision-making processes.
The SHM’s evolution from a private initiative of a few powerful individuals to the biggest museum in Russia in terms of collection size, took place in three political contexts so varied that they could be referred to as three different countries: the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and modern democratic Russia. The SHM was founded and had to operate in a unique set of circumstances not least its highly political location and influential urban environment. It has also, throughout its history and in dramatically varied political contexts, been tasked with the role of displaying the country’s national history. From a contemporary perspective and with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that to perform this task well within such complex and dramatically changing contexts, required a coherent strategy that would allow the organisation to keep its integrity, while remaining responsive to change and that this strategy needed to be implemented by a group of professionals in a flexible, yet meaningful space. Whether the SHM has ever been able to operate in this way and whether it can learn from the past in its future decision-making is, in many respects, the focus of this thesis.
5
Figure 1. The main façade of the State Historical Museum, Georgy Sapozhnikov ©
Figure 2. Location of the SHM on Google Maps
From the very foundation, key decision-makers at the Museum focused primarily on the physical form of the building and the symbolism of the architectural choices, rather than the functions of the facility and the professional expertise of those who were responsible
6 for it. Strangely, the first architect placed in charge of the project had no relevant educational background in either architecture or museums. Similarly, one of the first museum directors often remarked on his own lack of interest in administrative work.1 Despite the fact that the founders and those who followed them in positions of power prioritized the physical space over planning and staffing decisions, their choices (or lack thereof) in these areas had an equally profound effect on the museum space and the measures taken specifically to form it.
The illustrations of this effect can be found at different stages of the museum’s existence, starting as early as the formative years. Some of the early decisions created permanent issues for the facility, such as the failure to include any kind of storage in the layout, which resulted in the museum lacking necessary space for the entirety of its existence, starting in the very first decades. A similar effect can be observed while exploring the decorative choices made while designing the first exhibition floor, where, following the articulated mission of illustrating Russian history, the halls were given an appearance that corresponded with their exhibition content and contemporaneous historical understanding; the ceiling of the entrance zone is a tangible example of this way of thinking decorated with the family tree of Russian tsars, it ends with the founders’ contemporaries. Such an approach, which, it could be argued, sought always to prioritise the building of a symbol and a monument over any longer-term view of the building as a fully-functioning museum facility, limited the exhibition spaces in their flexibility to adapt to further developments in history as a science and the inevitable growth of collections as new events took place and produced artefacts.
At the museum today, these observations also ring true. However, today there is a new tendency to make use of the space so that it would meet visitor’s needs. Thus, for instance, in 2017 it was decided to make a new exit from the museum, encouraging visitors to go through the newly created exhibition space and a souvenir shop, which was also launched recently, and therefore catering to both the museum’s and visitor’s needs. In June 2017, the main entrance from the Red Square was opened to the general public for the first time since 1986. It will be in operation each year until September 30th, during sunny days. This is as opposed to the previous three decades, when the
1 I. E. Zabelin, Dnevniki. Zapisnye knizhki [Diaries. Notebooks] (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo imeni Sabashnikovyh, 2001).
7 closed door did not attract attention from the people walking through the Red Square; the door is now open, and anyone can enter the Paradnue Seni and take a look around, without paying an entrance fee. This decision can be considered as a sign of a more outward focus from the museum.
After the Revolution, the effects of previous inflexible planning led to significant spatial changes and a series of prolonged negotiations between the museum and the authorities. The Soviet period of the museum’s existence was marked by a complicated power dynamic with the Government, which provided the organisation with better-defined legislation and support of professional development, as well as being the only source of financing, but felt that it was, therefore, entitled to exercise excessive control. The strategy behind most of the further changes made at the museum was, consequently, imposed by the Government and driven by the introduction of Marxist theories in mainstream cultural life and by the insistence on including further events in the exhibition layout of the museum.
However, viewing all the events of this Soviet period exclusively as a result of Government-imposed ideology leads to a limited understanding, which, unfortunately, became commonplace in the late 20th century and which this thesis aims to avoid. Most of the changes, when thoroughly explored, can be explained by the need to update infrastructure or to conform the conditions inside the building to modern architectural standards and even the architect’s artistic preferences. Moreover, those acts that are purely ideological at their core, such as the whitening of the tsar's portraits and the removal of the symbolic eagle figurines from the towers, were not ordered by anyone at the museum, at least not according to the available documents. The Soviet period, therefore, despite its unfortunate reputation at the museum, in academic texts and in the media, was marked by a rational approach to the SHM as a facility and as a building, where ideology did play a part, but it was in fact accompanied by a consistent framework that provided the organisation with various forms of support.
The contemporary approach to the SHM was formulated during its last reconstruction, which for the museum began in the Soviet period and from which it emerged into modern Russia. The central focus was once again placed on the symbolic role of the building, rather than on the facility, its mission, and its staff, and the majority of
8 changes implemented in the 1930s were reversed. The combination of the monument protection movement and the establishment of institutional history, condemning the Soviet period as Government-mandated vandalism, have resulted in fossilizing the original inflexible layout and placing exaggerated value on the physical appearance of the building.
While historical context and the state of the museum profession at certain times can account for some of these characteristics, it is hoped that holding up the ideal of museum architecture, which facilitates the functioning and blossoming of the museum as institution, will provide a useful lens through which to consider the evolution of the SHM and the dilemmas the museum faces today. Throughout the history of the museum, regardless of the particular historical context in which it found itself, certain patterns have continued to repeat themselves. Among some of these are the effect of the Red Square on the facility, overly complicated communication with large Governmental bodies and at the same time major financial support of local city authorities, and poorly- planned major construction projects that had to be finished prior to certain events. Another persistent issue is viewing, and therefore treating, the mission and strategy, the staff and the building as completely separate items. At each stage of the museum’s existence, only one component was given priority: at the beginning and at the current time it is the building; and during the Soviet era it was the mission and the content.
With all this in mind, this thesis aims to explore the decision-making that shaped the architecture of the SHM from its establishment in 1872 up to the present day. The thesis places a particular focus on the decision-making processes behind the architectural choices made during the formative years, as well as those taken during the two major renovations in 1937 and in 1986-1997. The research also considers the expertise and context of the professionals responsible for these decisions in an attempt to produce a clearer, less biased version of the events and parties involved than have previously been written. For instance, the focus on the staff and their decisions produces quite a polarized understanding of the contribution of the architects Vladimir Sherwood and Andrey Burov. Sherwood’s work on designing the building is traditionally assessed as brilliant and meaningful and Andrey Burov’s renovation is usually referred to as
9 Government-sanctioned vandalism.2 However, a careful analysis of their thinking process, as well as their educational and professional background, reveals that Sherwood‘s contribution was relatively limited and that Burov was in fact attempting to address some of these limitations during his tenure.
The SHM was chosen as a case study for the present research due to a set of unique features. To begin with, its building was one of the first few created in Russia with the specific purpose of housing a museum, which provided the research with an insight into early Russian museum practices and architecture. Another feature that made researching this case particularly rewarding is that it presented an opportunity to explore the power dynamic between the museum and the environment – political, economic, urban, professional – in which it exists. This was especially true in terms of politics, as the museum’s mission of exhibiting national history and its physical proximity to crucial Governmental buildings created a situation in which the effect of historical changes was unavoidable. As the museum was conceived in the atmosphere of the Russian Empire and was later renovated twice, once during the Soviet era and once in the modern Russian political system, the perception and treatment of its space in different political contexts becomes rather pronounced. The need for Government involvement remained constant, although, the balance of power and the strength of local initiative varied significantly and could be explored through a major archive of personal and institutional documents.
The purpose of uncovering deeper connections between the spatial transformations of the museum, the role of professionalism, and the museum as a facility, required a particular framework that would allow to focus on a relatively small-scale, but well- contextualized case study at particular periods of time in order to expose wider trends. There was also the requirement of avoiding institutional bias and established judgements, all of which pointed in the direction of microhistory. Developed in Italy in
2 Levykin, Aleksej, ‘Kazhdaja Jepoha Tait Poddelki’ [Every epoch carries a forgery] (interviewed by Anna Sabova), Kommersant.ru (29 February 2016)
10 the 1970s, this approach was designed specifically for providing different perspectives and seeing larger trends in the lives of individuals or places.3
Key influences here were the architectural micro-histories of Crook,4 Whitehead,5 and MacLeod.6 While Crook and Whitehead operated rather narrow definitions of museum architecture, equating it to the building and its physical structure, the way they approached their respective case studies, the British Museum and the National Gallery in London, demonstrated an awareness of the complex interwoven structure of factors that influence the production of museum space. Both focused on interpersonal relationships, however, Crook was more interested in administrative and financial viewpoints, while Whitehead explored the antagonism of ideas and opinions. MacLeod’s research on the Walker Art Gallery, being the most recent of all three studies, takes this approach further by expanding the definition of museum architecture to encompass all these social interactions and power struggles and a variety of environments and contexts. Her approach is marked by attention to the constant change in spaces being made and remade through processes of design, of representation and of use, and to the role of individuals, to the point of actually viewing a museum as if it were a living thing. A detailed analysis of these and other texts, and the extent to which this thesis relies on them, is presented in the literature review section.
Also, key to the development of the research has been my ongoing engagement with and growing interest in facility management. Intrigued and sometimes dismayed by the management of the SHM today, a thorough review of the facility management literature has enabled me to develop an understanding of the relevance of looking at the history of the SHM in order to understand the spatial and administrative issues faced by the museum today. This literature sets forward a set of principles that authors, such as Lord and Lord,7 and Person-Harm and Cooper,8 suggest for constructing, maintaining and
3 Sigurður Gylfi Magnússon and István M. Szijártó. What is Microhistory? Theory and Practice (London, New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis group, 2013) 4 Joseph Mordaunt Crook, The British Museum (London: Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 1972) 5 Christopher Whitehead, The Public Art Museum in Nineteenth Century Britain: The Development of the National Gallery (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005) 6 Suzanne MacLeod, Museum Architecture: A New Biography (London and New York: Routledge, 2013) 7 Gail Dexter Lord and Barry Lord, The Manual of Museum Planning, 2nd edn (Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 2009) 8 Angela Person, The Care and Keeping of Cultural Facilities: A Best Practice Guidebook for Museum Facility Management (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2014).
11 renovating museum buildings. These principles include, for instance, formulating and being aware of the institution’s goals and functions and making the spaces match those in terms of appearance and functionality. Museums are advised to know their principles and keep their integrity while negotiating with the other parties, such as contractors, investors, and Government bodies. The authors also insist on the importance of lengthy preliminary stages for every project, including a study of previous similar activities within the institution and outside of it. Most texts describe the importance of professional management and hiring qualified staff. The events of the SHM formation and renovations are, therefore, assessed through the lens of these recommendations.
Applying these concepts to the case study was done with respect to the fact that most of the events in question took place when management, especially museum management, was not defined as a professional area in Russia. Moreover, poor professional communication between the USA, where most sources on facility management were published, and the USSR and even modern Russia, may have impeded the implementation of these ideas in Russian practices, even if theoretically some of the books could have been available. The facility management framework, therefore, is not used to judge the parties involved in the SHM establishment and renovations, but rather the validity of facility management concepts and recommendations is explored on the basis of the events at the SHM.
Opening up a Greater Understanding of Russian Museums and Museum Architecture My aim throughout the research has been to make a contribution to this body of work by sharing a Russian perspective on museum architecture, which is relatively underrepresented in the Anglophone scientific community. With this in mind, the opening chapter of the thesis traces back the development of Russian museum studies and specifically, where possible, the attitudes towards museum architecture to as early as the late 19th century.
Despite the popular view of museum studies developing as a result of Soviet cultural policies, some significant contributions to the field were made in pre-Revolution Russia. Even at the point when the number of museums in the country was rather low, some
12 staff members and administrators started analysing their experiences. By looking at the formation of the SHM, and its contemporary and neighbour the Polytechnic Museum in Chapter 4, the thesis aims to demonstrate how undervalued the diversity and scope of museum activities of the time are in modern perception. Indeed, as Chapter 4 will show, some of the very first texts on the way museums could be organised were written as early as the 1870s, by Anatoly Bogdanov, one of the founders of the Polytechnic Museum. Bogdanov summarised his own experience and the practices of European museums of his time. His texts present a systematic approach to the museum as an institution, paying attention to the collections, the facility, the funding, and the staff.9 Another work which promoted a systematic approach to museums was published in 1919, just after the Revolution. Nikolay Romanov, the author, was an art history professor at the Moscow State University and later the director of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. He explored local history museums, their establishment, collection policies, education activities, buildings, and funding. He stressed the need for regular maintenance and the importance of those members of staff who were responsible for it.10 Both of these texts stand as, perhaps, the earliest examples of manuals in Russia on how to establish and run a museum.
The early 20th century was also marked by increased communication between museum professionals and the beginning of forming a community. In 1912, the very first all- Russian gathering took place at the SHM. Participants discussed a variety of issues, among them the theoretical foundation of museology, types of museums according to the size of their collections and location, funding sources, and the role of the Government.11 The next all-Russian conference was scheduled to take place in 1914, however, it was postponed due to the outbreak of World War I.
9 A.P. Bogdanov, Mnenie nepremennogo chlena komiteta professora A.P. Bogdanova o vybore mesta dlja Postojannogo Politehnicheskogo muzeja, 24 janvarja 1873 goda [The opinion of Professor A.P. Bogdanov, an indispensable member of the Committee, on choosing a site for a permanent Museum, 24 January 1873 year], Izvestija imperatorskogo obshhestva ljubitelej estestvoznanija, antropologii i jetnografii, tom 15. Moskovskij muzej prikladnyh znanij. Materialy, kasajushhiesja ustrojstva muzeja, rechi, proiznesennye pri ego otkrytii 30-go nojabrja 1872 goda, otchet vysochajshe uchrezhdennogo komiteta muzeja za pervyj god ego sushhestvovanija po 30 nojabrja 1873 goda. Pod redakciej sekretarja Komiteta N.K. Zengera (Moscow: Tipografija Gracheva i K. u Prechistenskih vorot, dom Shilovoj. 1874), pp. 69-75. 10 Nikolaj Il'ich Romanov, Mestnye muzei i kak ih ustraivat' [Local museums and how to arrange them] (Moscow: tip.N. Zheludkovoj, 1919) 11 Muzeevedcheskaja mysl' v Rossii XVIII - XX vekov: sbornik dokumentov i materialov [Museological ideas in Russia in the XVIII-XX centuries. The collection of documents and materials], ed. by Je. A. Shulepova. (Moscow: Jeterna, 2010), pp. 372-394.
13 After the revolution of 1917, all museums were nationalised and assigned the function of distributing knowledge about various subjects, including the role of the Soviet Government. Museums were now funded by the state, and since they played a significant role in public education, the Government paid attention to the professional development of museum staff and formulating and enforcing legislation to reflect all the necessary changes in the sector. In the 1930s museums experimented with Marxist theory and the ways it could be implemented in the exhibition layout.12 During the 1950s to 1980s researchers and members of staff were mainly focused on the collections and the importance of authentic objects.13 Although several books on museum architecture were published during these periods,14 the majority of professional discussions revolved around other topics, primarily exhibition design. At that time museum buildings were considered a tool to support a museum’s goals, and their appearance and infrastructure had to follow the public needs and exhibition content instead of being a monument or a symbol on their own.
At the moment, the Soviet period is still relatively recent to be studied objectively, and the effects of the Government intervening this intensely in the cultural life of the country may not become immediately apparent. One of the aims of the thesis is to define at least some patterns by looking at the complicated dynamic between the SHM and various Governmental bodies.
After the collapse of the USSR in 1991 the relationship between museums and the Government became even more complicated. On the one hand, excessive control was no longer commonplace, and museums were provided with various freedoms, including more self-regulation, better access to foreign experience, and a variety of new funding options, including grants and donations. On the other hand, museums were and are still
12 V. P. Grickevich, Istorija muzejnogo dela v novejshij period (1918–2000) [History of museum work in modern times (1918–2000)] (Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo SPbGUKI, 2009). 13 Osnovy sovetskogo muzeevedenija [Soviet Museology Basics], ed. by P. I. Galkina (Moscow: Goskul'tprosvetizdat, 1955). 14 M.T. Katernoga, Arhitektura muzejnyh i vystavochnyh zdanij [Architecture of museum and exhibition buildings] (Kiev: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Arhitektury Ukrainskoj SSR, 1952); Evgenija Ivanovna Kirichenko. Arhitekturnye teorii XIX veka v Rossii [Architectural theories in Russia in the XIXth century] (Mosсow: Iskusstvo, 1986); Vladimir Ivanovich Revjakin, Hudozhestvennye muzei [Art Museums] (Moscow: Strojizdat, 1974); Vladimir Ivanovich Revjakin, Muzei mira: Arhitektura [Museums of the world: architecture] (Moscow: Informjekspress, 1993).
14 primarily financially dependent on the Government,15 and most are struggling to find effective strategies for existing in the modern world, possibly because the previous decades did not require them to adapt and demonstrate initiative. Some museum professionals perceive managerial practices in rather a negative way.16 Museological research, which was actively supported during the previous period, slowed down; however, there are still approximately twenty departments of museology in various universities across the country. Among approximately three hundred PhD dissertations published during the last two decades,17 there are only a few aimed at exploring museum architecture.18 While they may appear very broad, as the scope of the research can be formulated as widely as “the evolution of museum buildings in the 20th century”, they are suitable, however, for identifying larger trends. This thesis focuses only partly on the existence of the SHM in this new reality, as the amount of available data and the parties involved in every process make the decision-making, and, therefore, the analysis of it, significantly more complicated. Nevertheless, it seems to be worthwhile to explore why the museum, presented with so many choices, opted to revert its structure and design to that of the period of its foundation. It is possible that a major part in this process was played by the monument protection movement that emerged in the 1960s, combined with the well-developed institutional perception of the SHM building as an architectural masterpiece and general restorative processes within the society, such as heightened interest towards monarchy and religion. It is also possible that the proximity to a highly ritualized, politicized and historicized area of the Kremlin and the Red Square has supported the transformation of the building into a symbol rather than a facility.
15 Stat'ja 4. Gosudarstvennoe regulirovanie v sfere muzeev i Muzejnogo fonda Rossijskoj Federacii [Article 4. State regulation in the field of museums and the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation], in Federal'nyj zakon ot 26.05.1996 N 54-FZ (red. ot 03.07.2016) "O Muzejnom fonde Rossijskoj Federacii i muzejah v Rossijskoj Federacii" [Federal law N 26.05.1996 54-FZ (ed. on 03.07.2016), "the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation and museums in Russian Federation"]
15 The Structure of the Thesis
Chapter 1 presents a brief account of Russian museum history. Following this, Chapter 2 is dedicated to a literature review on museum architecture and facility management. Chapter 3 focuses on microhistory and the other research methods employed in this thesis and contains an overview of all primary and secondary sources used, and of the theoretical framework within which the analysis was undertaken. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 are dedicated to, respectively, the formative years of the museum, the renovation of the 1930s and the reconstruction of the 1980s.
Chapter 4, The conception and early years of the SHM: Finding the forms for a national history museum, explores the period of 1870s-1883 and follows the museum from official establishment of the organisation to the opening of the building to the public that coincided with the coronation of Alexander III. This period is both well- documented and well-represented in academic literature, which, alongside the obvious benefits, has created an additional challenge of avoiding bias by previously published authors, such as Avram Razgon and Elena Kirichenko. The Chapter also includes a brief comparison of the SHM and the Polytechnic Museum.
Chapter 5, The renovation of 1937: Re-evaluating the quality and ethics, studies the renovation of the late 1930s undertaken under the leadership of the Soviet architect Andrey Burov. The main challenge in exploring these events was avoiding the traditional focus on ideology and looking at the actual decision-making process behind the changes.
Finally, Chapter 6, The reconstruction of 1986-1997: An architectural U-turn, is dedicated to the last renovation that took place in 1986-2003. The scope of the chapter was narrowed down to the first phase, which was completed in September 1997, with only some of the halls being opened to the public. The biggest challenge of describing these events was trying to uncover as much information as possible when accessibility was limited due to poor documentation practices and potentially illegal or questionable activities that were typical for the construction business of the time.
16 In the concluding chapter – Chapter 7 – the various strands of the research are drawn together and the findings of the entire work are presented.
17 Chapter 1
The Emergence of Museums and Museology in Russia
This chapter is dedicated to an overview of Russian museum history as a route to providing the reader with a preliminary contextual understanding. It also serves to ground the Russian literature presented subsequently in this thesis in the atmosphere and circumstances in which it was produced. I focus on the period between the early 18th century, when the very first museum in Russia was established, to the late 1990s, when the museum highlighted in this thesis, the SHM, was re-opened to the public after its second renovation. The three-century period covered can be, following the modern approach common among Russian historians,19 divided into three uneven parts, each one having distinct political, economic, and social contexts in which museums emerged and functioned. These are the Imperial, Soviet and modern Russia periods.
Imperial Russia
The idea of the museum as a cultural institution was unknown to Russian society before the 18th century, however, it is possible to find some pre-museum examples. For instance, the tsar’s and also church-owned collections: the Kremlin Armoury (early 16th century),20 or the sacristy of Saint Basil’s Cathedral (late 16th century).21 These collections were private and were not meant to be displayed to the general public.22
In the 17th to 18th centuries, the emperor Peter the Great (1672-1725) made a significant contribution to developing museum work in Russia. Because of his interest in European culture and values, he visited a number of major European countries of the time, such as the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom. During his visits to the Netherlands
19 I. V. Kurukin, Istorija Rossii IX-XX vv. [History of Russia of 9-20th centuries] (Moscow: Prem'era, 1998); N. I. Pavlenko, L. M. Ljashenko and V. A. Tvardovskaja, Istorija. Istorija Rossii [History. History of Russia], ed. by Nikolaj Ivanovich Pavlenko, 2 vols (Moscow: Drofa, 2013); Leonid Aleksandrovich Kacva. Istorija Rossii s drevnejshih vremen do serediny XIX veka [History of Russia from the Ancient times till the mid-19th century] (Moscow: AST, 1999). 20 G. L. Malickij, ‘K istorii Oruzhejnoj palaty Moskovskogo Kremlja’ [On the history of the Kremlin Armoury Chamber], in Gosudarstvennaja Oruzhejnaja palata Moskovskogo Kremlja (Moscow, 1954), pp. 507-560 (pp. 520-521). 21 V. P. Grickevich, Istorija muzejnogo dela do konca XVIII veka [History of museum studies before the 19th century], 2nd edn (Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo SPbGUKI, 2004). 22 Muzeevedcheskaja mysl' v Rossii XVIII - XX vekov, pp. 15-18.
18 in the late 17th century and in 1716-1717, Peter observed a large number of various cabinets of curiosities and museum collections, and some of them were later purchased for the Kunstkamera, the first Russian museum. It was established in 1714 in the newly founded Saint Petersburg. At the beginning, the Kunstkamera was located in a temporary facility; it was a typical cabinet of curiosities where various items, both natural and man-made, were displayed. The Kunstkamera was opened to the public free of charge. Moreover, in order to encourage a larger number of potentially interested visitors, Peter arranged for free drinks and food to be served upon entering the building!23
In 1724, the Kunstkamera became a part of the newly established Academy of Sciences, which was responsible for its development and funding. Not only did Peter purchase the collections, he also invited European architect Georg Johann Mattarnovi to design a dedicated museum building, which was opened after Peter’s death in 1728.24 Another major Russian museum, the Hermitage, was established in 1764 by the Empress Catherine the Great who began the practice of collecting exceptional pieces of art, as well as sculpture, ancient artefacts, and coins. The collections of the Hermitage became available for public viewing in the mid-19th century, when Emperor Nicholas I officially opened it as the first art museum in Russia. Up until the Revolution of 1917, the Hermitage was owned by the Emperors.25
Peter the Great also initiated and encouraged collecting local Russian items which could be considered valuable in terms of history, archaeology, natural history, and other areas of science. Before his reign, there were no state-promoted initiatives regarding heritage preservation. During the 18th century,26 there were no major decrees or Government statements on the matter. However, there were a number of documents produced by individuals, mainly historians, art historians and archaeologists, whose research was dedicated to particular collections and museums. For instance, Yakov Shtelin, an academic, art historian and collector, published a paper on the history of paintings in
23 V. P. Grickevich, Istorija muzejnogo dela do konca XVIII veka, pp. 214-215. 24 For a detailed description of the Kunstkamera building see “The Kunstkamera of Tsar Peter the Great (St Petersburg 1718-34): King Solomon’s house or repository of the four continents” by Debora J. Meijers in “The Architecture of the Museum: Symbolic Structures, Urban Contexts” ed. by M. Giebelhausen. 25 V. P. Grickevich, Istorija muzejnogo dela do konca XVIII veka. 26 Ocherki istorii muzejnogo dela v SSSR [On the history of museum work in the USSR], vol 7 (Moscow: Sovetskaja Rossija, 1971)
19 Russia, outlining collection practices of the 18th century; he also provided us with a detailed description of galleries and other spaces where these paintings were exhibited, as well as with the trends regarding the popularity of different genres.27
During the 19th century, a number of museums in Russia increased dramatically, from just several large museums with collections on varied subjects in the 18th century, up to more than 150 museums by the late 19th century. This was possible because of the active participation of the royalty, nobility, and merchants, who opened private museums and funded existing ones. Not only were large art museums opened, such as the Russian Museum in Saint Petersburg (1895) and the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow (1867), but also a significant number of provincial museums dedicated to local history. Approximately forty-five museums were established between 1861 and 1905.28 It was also the period when the need for establishing a professional museum community was first voiced. In December 1912 the first inaugural meeting took place at the Russian Historical Museum in Moscow, which was the original name for the SHM. In the late 19th century, particular attention was paid to museology itself.29 Moreover, the period between the end of the 19th century and the revolution of 1917 is characterized by rapid development of arts and sciences, as well as a general increase in the level of literacy of Russian citizens, from 21% in 1897 to 43.5% in 1914.30 Before the Revolution there was no special Governmental body responsible for running museums, and no centralized funding structure and dedicated resources.
As for heritage preservation, in the early 19th century,31 research and preservation of architectural monuments were declared a state priority, with a special focus on ancient Orthodox churches. One of the reasons why the emperors and the Government started publicly caring about national heritage was the rise of national self-awareness, which was itself the result of the Patriotic War of 1812. One of the most important pre- revolution documents on the issue in question was published during the reign of Nicholas I. The 1826 decree issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs was aimed at both
27 Je. A. Shulepova, ed., (2010), pp. 84-102. 28 V. P. Grickevich, Istorija muzejnogo dela konca XVIII - nachala XX vv. [The history of museum studies of the late XVIIIth - early XXth centuries], (Saint-Petersburg: SPbGUKI, 2007), p. 152. 29 Je. A. Shulepova, ed., (2010), p. 372. 30 V. P. Grickevich, Istorija muzejnogo dela konca XVIII - nachala XX vv., p. 136. 31 Ocherki istorii muzejnogo dela v SSSR [On the history of museum work in the USSR], vol 1 (Moscow: Sovetskaja Rossija, 1957).
20 cataloguing the information about the ancient buildings and preventing their destruction. City governors and local police were responsible for physical preservation of those buildings, and in the 1830s a number of auxiliary local bodies were created in order to perform similar functions. Local authorities were recommended to document as much information about the monuments as possible, including, for instance, the instruction to make architectural drawings. Later on, several scientific societies were created, among them the Imperial Archaeological Committee, which conducted research on the existing monuments. It should also be mentioned that some of the monuments were renovated, and the interest in ancient architecture inspired the development of a new trend, the so called ‘Russian style’, an example of which is the SHM building.32
Soviet Russia
A new era of museum development in Russia began after the revolution of 1917, when the territories of the former Russian Empire were united under the rule of the Bolshevik party, which created the Soviet state, the USSR. All museums in the country were declared state property, and one of the principal outcomes of the new policies was the creation of a centralized museum network, which was governed and funded by the state. During the Soviet period, a number of Governmental bodies on both federal and local levels were established in order to run cultural institutions, including museums, libraries, and theatres. In 1953 the Ministries of Culture of the USSR and the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, a division within the USSR roughly equal to modern Russia) were established. The USSR Ministry of Culture was responsible for federal, of all-USSR importance, cultural institutions, whereas the RSFSR’s Ministry was responsible for facilities located in the territory of the Russian republic.33
The 1920s was a period of phenomenal growth and relative freedom in all areas of Soviet life, and it was the first time when the social role of architecture was clearly articulated: new types of buildings appeared, and already existing buildings were
32 N. S. Nikolaeva ‘Formirovanie gosudarstvennoj sistemy ohrany pamjatnikov vo vtoroj chetverti XIX veka (sravnitel'nyj analiz: Francija i Rossija)’ [Formation of the state system for the protection of monuments in the second quarter of the XIXth century (comparative analysis: France and Russia)], Izvestija Rossijskogo Gosudarstvennogo Pedagogicheskogo Universiteta im. A.I. Gercena, 80 (2008), 261-270. 33 V. P. Grickevich, Istorija muzejnogo dela v novejshij period (1918–2000), p. 84.
21 assigned new functions. As we will see in Chapter 5, it was during this period of relative freedom that museologists made the first attempts to conceptualize museum space, more precisely, exhibition space, and theorise museums as institutions.
However, the 1930s were famous for vastly different reasons and are typically associated with wrongful persecution (GULAG), political repressions (the Great Purge), and pre-war anxiety. The relatively pluralistic and liberal period of the 1920s was followed by the establishment of a dictatorship under Joseph Stalin, the reasons for which are still being debated. Some authors believe that it is quite common for the Russian political “pendulum” to swing from conservative to liberal and vice versa, while others say that is was Stalin’s purposeful political moves that eventually gave him almost unlimited political power.34 Whatever the reasons, all spheres of Soviet life were affected by these changes, including the cultural sector. All forms of art were assigned the mission of supporting the birth and development of Stalin’s personality cult and various artistic movements were now organized under the jurisdiction of Government bodies. Architecture was now understood as a tool of “monumental propaganda”,35 aimed at praising Stalin and the Party, and Moscow, once again the capital of Russia. Buildings were renovated according to the newly adopted political paradigm, the predominant architectural style resembling of Imperial Rome. As for the museum sector, growth was continuing, but it would also become a tool of state propaganda. It is possible to name a particular event, the first all-Soviet museum congress in December 1930, at which this transition was officially articulated. The new regime required a new way of displaying museum objects that was dictated by the Marxist view on communism at the climax of social evolution.36 Over the next 30 years this approach would dominate the sector, requiring museum professionals to study Lenin’s and Marx’s works on philosophy and history and insert this interpretive frame into museum displays; Lenin and Marx would be quoted regularly both in the museological study guides, as well as on exhibition labels.
34 S.I. Bykova, ‘Vozhd' kak vrag: Negativnye konnotacii obraza I. Stalina v predstavlenijah sovremennikov’ [Leader as the enemy: negative connotations the image of I. Stalin, according to his contemporaries], Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N.I. Lobachevskogo, 4(3) (2013), 128-134. 35 The need for monumental propaganda was first voiced by Vladimir Lenin: special decree was published in 1918, and according to it the tsar’z monuments and statues should be removed and new ones, promoting revolution, had to be installed. 36 Pervyj Vserossijskij muzejnyj s"ezd. Dekabr’ 1930. Tezisy dokladov [The First All-Russian Congress of Museum Workers. December 1930. Proceedings] (Leningrad: LOOSRP. Muzejnaja komissija, 1930).
22 It should be mentioned that after the Congress, museum studies, which emerged as a subject in the early 20th century, was officially recognized as a scientific discipline, and since then a number of research centres have been founded. One of the most famous was the Research Institute of Museum Studies (Moscow),37 which published various books on museum theory and practice. Soviet museologists would mainly focus on museum theory, collections care and exhibition design.38
Some of the first sources dedicated specifically to museum architecture were published in the 1950s in the USSR. There were works by architects and museum specialists. In the case of the sector, museum specialists were mainly concerned with inside spaces where exhibitions were usually created, whereas architects viewed museums as facilities with a specific set of functions to be performed within them, exhibitions being just one of them. It is possible that this difference, and perhaps the failure of both groups to communicate their priorities to each other, resulted in the difficulties during the last SHM renovation discussed on page 195 in Chapter 6.
Monument preservation had a significant impact on museum development after the Second World War, and more precisely, on the way museum buildings could be used. The Soviet Government compiled a comprehensive list of buildings to be thoroughly examined and preserved, and a number of museums, including the SHM, were on this list. In modern Russian and Soviet practices, there are at least four terms which describe processes that lead to particular interior and exterior changes. These terms are ремонт (remont39), реставрация (restavracija),40 консервация (conservancy), and приспособление (prisposoblenie41). These terms have been developed over the course of decades and were mentioned in a number of laws and Governmental guidelines (for
37 Anna Zaks, ‘Jeta dolgaja, dolgaja zhizn: 1933-1963' [This long, long life: 1933-1963] (Moscow: Gosudarstvennyj istoricheskij muzej, 2000), p. 244. 38 P. I. Galkina, ed. 39 Remont is a process which mainly deals with engineering infrastructure and maintenance of a facility so that it can function normally according to current construction and safety standards. 40 Restavracia (реставрация) is a term used to describe actions aimed at restoring original construction elements and interior decorations that have historical value. It appears that the term has been in use since the 1830s when it often described a process of restoring both buildings and works of art. 41 Prisposoblenie is a process that could involve changes in the infrastructure of varying degree of complexity in order to be able to use the building according to modern standards. For example, elevators can be added to the building so that disabled visitors can access it, or a courtyard can be covered with a glass roof in order to provide a comfortable space for public activities.
23 instance, 1948,42 1978,43 198544), without clear definitions, before being finally clarified in the 2002 law.45 In every document it was clearly articulated that these processes had to be conducted by an authorised body under Governmental control. Since the events described in this thesis do not include konservacija (a procedure in which a building has to be preserved in the current condition without any changes), this term will not be discussed in detail.
In Russia, the 1980s were characterised by intensive development of museological theory, which climaxed in the production of a book entitled Museum Terms: Terminology Issues of Museum Studies (1986), which summarized previous discussions on museum architecture. Certain terms that the book focused on gave a sense of how museum architecture was understood in Soviet museology of the late 1980s. First of all, the physical structure of a museum was defined through two terms: a museum building and museum interior. According to the dictionary, a museum building is specially designed or adapted for being a museum with a number of required zones, such as, for instance, storage, entrance zone, and exhibition halls.46 ‘Museum interior’ was understood more broadly, which included “exhibition space, architecture, and interior design” that all had to follow the exhibition concept, the main document which outlined principles of museum exhibition organisation.47 This, therefore, reinforced an older concept of museum architecture as a secondary tool whose main goal was to support the museum mission by creating a space to display museum collections and promote ideological messages.
Since one particular ideology dominated in every museum, requiring a certain way of exhibiting collections, such an approach resulted in organizing standardized exhibitions throughout the country. Since that time many of the permanent exhibitions have been
42 Resolution of the Council of Ministers N 3898 dated October 14, 1948 On measures to improve the protection of cultural monuments 43 1978 USSR Law On protection and use of historical and cultural monuments 44 Instrukcija po uchetu i hraneniju muzejnyh cennostej, nahodjashhihsja v gosudarstvennyh muzejah SSSR, 1985 [Instructions on the collection management and preservation of items stored in the USSR museums]
24 redesigned, but a number of photographs taken in the 1970s are still available. These photos show how similar most museums looked, no matter where they were located: in the capital or in a small provincial town.
Modern Russia
In 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the political and economic systems changed significantly, shifting from communism to democracy, and from planned economy to capitalism. Even though most of the museums located on the territory of the former RSFSR continued to be state-run and state-funded institutions, it became possible to receive funding from various additional sources, including private donations and sponsorship from businesses. However, not all museums were able to quickly and fully adapt to the new reality, possibly because of a lack of previous experience and also the perception of administrative and fiscal management as beneath the artistic nature of the sphere, an idea that is explored in more depth below.
The political changes, despite their radical nature, did not have the same invigorating effect on the cultural institutions as the Revolution of 1917, possibly because, as opposed to the Bolshevik Government, the democratic one did not focus enough on its value, educational or ideological, in the museum system. The lack of interest translated into a lack of funding, coinciding with a rather tumultuous and often criminal development of businesses. This is especially true for construction and renovation projects, in which several major Russian museums were involved, since their buildings, erected in the early 20th century, had never come through complex renovation. These factors created a whirlwind of issues in the museum sphere, some of which remain unresolved. As for the development of museum studies as an academic discipline, there have been some improvements, such as establishing departments at major universities48 and creating better opportunities for local and international communication, as well as acknowledging the value of the managerial perspective. However, these changes are slower than the field requires, and have met resistance from previous generations of professionals.
48 For instance, the department of museum studies and monument preservation at St Peterburg State University (2004); the department of museology and document science at Altayskiy Institute of Culture in Barnaul (2013); the department of history, culture studies, and museum studies at Krasnodar Institute of Culture (2016).
25 This policy of standardizing exhibitions without paying any attention to the features of a particular museum was criticised by N. Nikishin,49 the then head of the Museum Projects Laboratory founded in 1987, which was a part of the aforementioned Research Institute of Museum Studies. The goal of the Laboratory was to address current issues in the museum sector by introducing new strategic methods, concepts and scenarios. As opposed to the official exhibition style promoted by the Soviet national museums, the researchers working in the laboratory considered each museum as unique, thus requiring a special exhibition script. The Laboratory was practitioner-driven and had no intention of formulating museological theory.
The opening of the Laboratory marked the next step in the understanding of museum space, since the researches were actively applying new, mostly Western, concepts of museology, especially the communication theory developed by Duncan Cameron.50 As a result, members of the laboratory museums were now considered as communication systems, where museum visitors were to play an important role alongside the museum objects. The Laboratory continued working after 1991 when the USSR was dissolved, and today it is one of a few companies in Russia which deals with museum projects. Although the activities of this group are primarily practical, their views can be uncovered from the projects they work on. In terms of thinking they perceive museum architecture as a tool that is based on the ideas behind the museum; in Russian terms, based on the museum concept – a kind of document where the museum mission is clearly articulated. Today the members of the Laboratory promote their approach among Russian museum professionals via social media groups, which have become an effective channel of communication.51
In the 2010s, museologists in many ways continued to focus on the topics chosen by the Soviet specialists, such as collections research and exhibition content development.
49 A. Shcherbakova, ‘Iz istorii muzejnogo proektirovanija v Rossii’ [On the history of museum design in Russia], in Museum Design, ed. by A. Sherbakova (Moscow, 2009), pp. 234-235. 50 Duncan Cameron, 'Viewpoint: the museum as a communication system and implications for museum education', Curator, 11(1) (1968), 33-40. 51 For instance, Laboratorija muzejnogo proektirovanija [Museum design Lab] (Facebook public group)
26 However, some researchers, for instance, Anna Leshchenko, promote the need for visitor-centred museum design and discuss the social role of museums.52
Today, major museums in Russia, faced with the problem of ever growing collections and lack of exhibition space, have begun to reconsider some of their older exhibition and storage practices and their relationship with the world around them. The most remarkable example of such a shift is, perhaps, the State Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg, which is considered to be one of the most traditional and conservative museums in Russia. Firstly, the museum administration made a highly unusual decision to move some of the collections into a newly constructed Art Restoration and Storage Centre, located in a residential part of the city, at the end of one of the underground lines. As opposed to the traditional museum storages which are usually unavailable to the public, the Hermitage Storage Centre has been open for visitors since 2005. 53 Even though it is located away from tourist routes, it is popular among local schools and, of course, researchers. The policy of open access to the collections can be characterised as a step away from understanding the museum as an elitist institution available only for those who can come to the city centre in order to visit it. Another Hermitage project which has been recently presented to the general public is the opening of new spaces in the General Staff Building54 – a former administrative building (1819-1823) on the Palace Square which had never been used as a museum. The aim of this renovated building is to provide the Hermitage with additional exhibition halls, as well as spaces for public events, such as exhibitions of contemporary art, lectures and concerts. Such an active development policy shows that even such large and traditional institutions are ready to meet the challenge of engaging new audiences.
52 Senior lecturer AnnaLeshchenko, Department of Museology, Russian State University for the Humanities (staff) < http://www.museolog.ru/staff/en/leshchenko.php>,
27 Another museum which deals with a similar range of issues is the Polytechnic Museum in Moscow, which had not been renovated since its opening in 1877 until 2010, when the current renovation project started.55 Interestingly, the Polytechnic is one of the few museums in Russia which has hired foreign specialists in museum architecture and exhibition design to plan the project. While the old museum building is closed, most of the collections are stored in the warehouse outside the city centre, which has been equipped according to accepted museum standards. The store, as with the Hermitage, is open to the public.56 The permanent exhibition was changed and is currently presented as a temporary one at a pavilion at the VDNKh (All-Russia Exhibition Centre), which was rented by the museum for the duration of the renovation. According to the museum mission, approved by the Government, the Polytechnic has to promote science by both exhibiting authentic objects and also by offering public education programmes, which includes lectures, workshops, guided tours, et cetera. In order to fulfil the mission the museum requires a new space for public events, which is currently being constructed on the Moscow State University campus; the building will consist of a lecture hall, a library, and teaching laboratories.57 Such a holistic approach to museum reconstruction, which includes renovating the old building and constructing new spaces, while continuing to fulfil certain functions, can become a framework for other museums which are to undergo renovations on such a large scale. Quite like the Hermitage, the Polytechnic seems to be rethinking its relationship with the city space: on the one hand, by linking itself to important cultural and educational centres such as the VDNKh and the Moscow University, and on the other hand, by moving its collections to remotely located storage, expanding its presence to different parts of Moscow and thus improving its accessibility.
Another key contemporary development in the Russian cultural sector is the creation of special city areas known as “museum quarters”. This practice, popular in Europe,58 is
55 ‘O modernizacii’ [On modernisation], Politeh, (n.d.)
28 still new for Russia, and one of the first cases is, again, located in Moscow. The State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, opened in 1912, is surrounded by a number of landmarks that date back to the 18th and 19th centuries. The idea of acquiring these buildings and joining them into a museum chain started taking form in the late 1980s under the management of Irina Antonova. In the 2000s, the museum acquired the last building it needed, and renovation projects began at a quicker pace. In 2008, Norman Foster’s project won the design competition, however, it was soon abandoned because of contradictions between Foster’s vision and local Government and cultural heritage non- profits’ views. In October 2014, a new project was presented to the public;59 one of the features of this project is that the main museum building will be connected to the others through underground corridors. It is not clear yet whether the new ambitious project will be fulfilled, but it is obvious that, like the Hermitage, the Pushkin Museum intends to become a centre for public engagement as well as a place for art historical research. However, all the collections are going to be located in the present place without building a special storage for them outside the city centre.
In contrast with the two most important cities in Russia, the situation in the rest of the country is quite different, and even though some of the museums are to move to new buildings, the reasons for this are rather different. It should be mentioned that the most typical museum in the Russian provincial areas is a museum of local history, which is usually located in a former church or monastery. One of the reasons why museums occupy these buildings is because, after the Revolution of 1917, the Soviet Government usually did not have enough funds to construct new museum buildings, and it was quite reasonable to use those which had been nationalized, among them – churches, cathedrals, private villas, tsars’ palaces, et cetera. As a result, dozens of local history museums were located in these buildings up until the 1990s, when a new tendency appeared: while establishing a new political system in Russia, the Government tended to promote pre-communist ideology, including the monarchy and the Orthodox church. Consequently, most of the buildings previously occupied by other institutions had to be returned to the Church. In the case of museums, their collections would be moved to newly constructed or renovated buildings. However, in some situations, as in Pereslavl-
59 Alisa Po, ‘Gorod. Pushkinskij muzej: Proekt rekonstrukcii’ [The City. The Pushkin Museum: Renovation Project], The Village (22 March 2012)
29 Zalessky, the museum had to move all of its collections immediately to a buildingwhich had not yet been renovated,60 and was unready to store the collections or host exhibitions. According to federal law № 327, museums whose buildings are to be returned to the Church have six years to complete the move, though the reality of such spatial transformations is quite different.
In the context of these major contemporary remakings of museums in Russia, it is the right time to also delve back into the history of Russia’s museums and begin to generate a more detailed understanding of their pasts and how we have come to where we are. Drawing all the threads introduced here together and through the lens of contemporary facility management, this thesis sets out to develop a microhistory of one institution, the State Historical Museum in Moscow. It is hoped that the thesis will act as an exchange between Russian and Anglophone museology and that it will contribute to both the Russian and Anglophone literature by shedding new light on the ways in which museum making in Russia has been pushed and pulled by politics, by professional agendas and by the views of key individuals. Most significantly, it is hoped that the thesis will provide a productive contribution to professional practice in Russia and the ongoing development of its important museums.
60 Jekspozicii Pereslavskogo muzeja-zapovednika mogut okazat'sja na ulice [Exhibitions of the Pereslavl- Zalessky museum could end up losing storage spaces], JARNOVOSTI (30.10.2014)
30 Chapter 2
Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
From the beginning, many museums were considered places to store and display objects.61 In the course of their more than three-hundred-year history, museums have developed from storing and displaying royal and private collections in the Renaissance period to public institutions successfully incorporated into society in the late 20th century.62 Throughout these centuries museums have been performing a number of functions, including storage, research, education, and entertainment. In order to perform each of these functions, a dedicated or multi-purpose spatial structure is required within a museum building, such as large well-lit rooms to display objects, or storage areas with special heating and humidity conditions.
Museum buildings have evolved as a special type of public building; once located within royal palaces and mansions, they are now often purpose-built facilities.63 These buildings are also a part of the built environment around them, and therefore exist in particular contexts, which have significant impact on them.
As the goal of this thesis is to explore the microhistory of a particular facility, the State Historical Museum in Moscow, and reveal how internal and external factors have affected decision-making processes behind particular spatial changes, there is a need to examine academic works in order to determine within which theoretical framework and discipline other authors approached museum architecture. An overview of a number of sources presented in the next section has revealed that researchers chose vastly varied strategies in their work and examine different scales of data, from the smallest contexts and biographies of those involved, to viewing the museum as a part of the city’s environment and historical period. Some chose to construct a descriptive narrative of architectural change, whilst others attempted to theorise the spaces and the multiple
61 Fedor Ivanovich Shmit, Muzejnoe delo. Voprosy jekspozicii [Museum work. Exhibition Matters] (Leningrad: Academia, 1929) 62 V. P. Grickevich, Istorija muzejnogo dela do konca XVIII veka. 63 Nikolaus Pevsner, A History of Building Types (London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 1979)
31 factors that can have an influence on them, utilising such concepts as built environment, production of space or monument, and instrument.
It is possible that research into a particular facility’s institutional history can benefit from ideas formulated not only by those who explore buildings academically as historians, art history specialists, sociologists, philosophers, or museologists, but also those who approach museums as managers and practitioners. In the 20th century, and especially over the last several decades, a wide variety of practical guides for museum staff have been published, including instructions and advice on designing, maintaining and renovating facilities. Although it would be unwarranted to operate modern concepts while referring to the events that took place earlier than these ideas emerged and these materials were published, they do nonetheless provide a useful lens through which to consider the shaping of museum buildings in the past.
This chapter offers an analysis of academic and practice-based literature on museum buildings. The first section is dedicated to the books in which museum buildings are viewed as a specific type of public building that evolved in the course of history. The second section is focused on those texts in which museum buildings are studied through the lens of microhistory. The third section explores Soviet research and practical guides on museum architecture. The choice to group sources based on their place and time of origin may seem significantly different compared to sections one, two, and four, which were organized according to the authors’ approach to museum buildings, however, Soviet sources are remarkably homogeneous in their position, a feature that will be discussed in detail further in the chapter. The fourth section presents the sources on museum management with a specific focus on facility management. The order of sources within the sections is chronological in order to present the development of every approach.
The majority of academic sources analysed here have been relied upon by other researchers while exploring museum buildings, both as a built type and as a microhistory. However, the inclusion of facility management as a research angle in an academic text can be viewed as a relative novelty. While some authors, such as Whitehead and Crook, focused on the financial and administrative aspects of constructing and running the museums they explored, they did not refer to the literature
32 on facility management, neither the items contemporary with their subjects or those contemporary with their lifetime.
Though rarely included in academic contexts, facility management has proven to be highly productive as an angle for this thesis. Firstly, the entire body of work on facility management, especially the early texts, were produced as a result of the authors’ analysis of their own experiences as practitioners and their observations of their colleagues’ work. They insisted on the importance of analysis, feedback, and communication and assessing the efficiency and adequacy of the decision-making at the museum, especially in the sphere of construction, maintenance and renovation. Many authors also maintained the position that failure to take into account the history of a particular institution can result in varied problematic issues in the future. Therefore, the goals facility management authors aimed to accomplish are partially similar to those of this thesis. Secondly, some of the facility management works were published simultaneously with the events discussed in the content chapters, making it possible to discuss these events within the FM framework without unjustifiably referring to anachronic literature.
Through a review of this wide-ranging literature – historical and theoretical accounts of museum architecture, as well as the more recent literature on facility management – this chapter aims to both draw attention to the academic context for my own study (the literature to which I aim to contribute), and elaborate my own theoretical position and framework.
Museums as a Specific Type of Public Building
The section presents the analysis of sources which are focused on the evolution of museum buildings as a type of public building. This approach is common for Russian researchers who tend to focus on large narratives, rather than investigating the history of one or several institutions.
One of the first European authors who focused specifically on museum buildings was Nikolaus Pevsner. In his book A History of Building Types (1976) Pevsner focused on the evolution of fourteen public building types, such as national monuments, hospitals, hotels, prisons, and museums. Pevsner explored their evolution through changes in
33 functions, styles and materials.64 Although Pevsner did not provide a definition of architecture, it is quite clear that he viewed museums as uninhabited buildings, a kind of object in their own right. He was not concerned with providing data on how they were occupied. Pevsner outlined the main historical stages in the emergence of new museum buildings. Starting from private galleries, such as the Uffizi in Florence or the Gonzaga Palace in Mantua, which were parts of palaces or affluent houses, he then proceeded to the first independent museum buildings, the Altes Museum in Berlin and the Glyptothek in Munich, and later to the new – in terms of aesthetics – contemporary American art museums: the Museum of Modern Art and the Guggenheim in New York. Pevsner predominantly focused on art museums, describing their architectural features and exhibition strategies. He concluded his research by stating that in the late 20th century there were no major changes in museum architecture:
In fact, no new principles have turned up, except that the ideal of the museum as a monument in its own right has been replaced by the ideal of the museum as the perfect place to show, enjoy and study works of art (or of history or of science).65
Pevsner’s book marked the birth of the historiographical approach to museum architecture. Here, a museum is viewed as a monument, different types of which evolve as time goes by.
Another important researcher is Michaela Giebelhausen, the editor of The architecture of the museum: symbolic structures, urban contexts (2003) and the author of Museum Architecture: a brief history (2007),66 The Architecture is the Museum, Symbolic capital: the Frankfurt museum boom of the 1980s (2003), and In the museum's ruins: staging the passage of time (2012).67 Giebelhausen views museum architecture as “the relationship between content and container”.68 Giebelhausen continued the work started by Pevsner by analysing the history of museum building types and providing a wider
64 Nikolaus Pevsner, A History of Building Types, p. 10 65 Ibid., p. 136. 66 A Companion to Museum Studies, ed. by Sharon Macdonald (London: Blackwell, 2006) 67 Museum Making: Narratives, Architectures, Exhibitions, ed. by Suzanne MacLeod, Laura Hourston Hanks and Jonathan Hale (Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge, 2012) 68 Michaela Giebelhausen, ‘Museum Architecture: A Brief History’, in A Companion to Museum Studies, ed. by Sharon Macdonald (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), p.223.
34 historical context, such as their political climate. Giebelhausen also operated with two terms from Pevsner’s work: a museum as a monument, which is a thing in itself, supporting the already established understanding and interpretation of art by means of architecture and design, and a museum as an instrument; the one which is flexible and ready to change. Giebelhausen concluded that presently museums again tend to be designed as monuments, since most of the recently built/restored museums have themselves become architectural masterpieces. However, at the same time the boundaries between “a monument” and “an instrument” have blurred and today we can talk about “monumental instruments” and “instrumental monuments”.69 Giebelhausen also focuses on a city, not just as an urban context, but rather as a battlefield for different political and social forces.
There are several Russian researchers who consider museum architecture in a rather similar way to the works discussed above. One of the first researchers who chose this way of approaching museum buildings was architect V.I. Revyakin, who produced Art Museums (1991) and Museums of the World (1993). Revyakin has been working on the topic since the 1970s, and these two books summarise the outcomes of his research, both theoretical and practical. Even though he does not provide a clear definition of museum architecture, it can be concluded that Revyakin considered museum architecture as a product of an architect’s work. However, this understanding is not narrow, since Revyakin argued that museums as social institutions are constantly being influenced by changes that occur in a particular period of time and in a particular society. He stressed the idea that museums are no longer “palaces”, but places for education and entertainment, and their architecture has to support these new functions.
Revyakin’s books can be considered as the most comprehensive research on museum architecture carried out in Russia. Not only did he provide his readers with an analysis of the historical development of museums as a building type, but also offered a range of practical advice on how to design an art museum building. For instance, in a chapter devoted to museum building design, Revyakin wrote a comprehensive guide which included such steps as: analysis of the city structure in order to choose a suitable location and creating a thorough description of museum functions in order to plan a
69 Ibid., p. 242.
35 space that would be able to perform them. It should also be mentioned that Revyakin was one of a few Soviet researchers who included an analysis of Western architectural theories, such as Le Corbusier’s theory, into his book, as well as examples of various European museums, such as the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam.
It is clear that Revyakin viewed exhibitions as the most crucial function of a museum, as he wrote that “architecture is characterized by the museum exhibition”.70 Moreover, the entire final chapter of Art Museums is devoted to exhibition design. In the second book Museums of the World, published two years later, Revyakin moved forward in understanding museum architecture and argued that an “exhibition-centred’ approach puts certain limits on what museum architecture can be today. In this book, Revyakin summarized his previous research, at the same time looking at museum architecture from a new, museological, angle. He stressed that for decades these two disciplines did not have a strong connection, since museology was focused on exhibition theory, whereas museum architecture had to follow the proposed exhibition plan to unlock a collection’s potential. Revyakin emphasized the importance of dialogue between the two disciplines that could help to effectively renovate existing museums, as well as design and build new ones. The book consists of two parts, and while the first one deals with theory, the second one is devoted to museum buildings, in particular in foreign countries, including Europe, as in his previous book, but also the United States of America, Japan, Cuba, Brazil, and Mexico. Revyakin analysed museum buildings from an architectural point of view, comparing the projects and the actual results. To sum up, these two books offered a new, more systematic approach to museum architecture, where both theory and practice shape the understanding of the phenomenon. However, based on my experience with Russian academic literature and attending multiple conferences, it does not appear that Revyakin’s work had a significant influence on the area either theoretically or practically. Ideas similar to his often appear in informal discussions among modern professionals, for instance in Facebook groups, but not as part of systematic institutionalized discourse.71
70 Vladimir Ivanovich Revjakin. Hudozhestvennye muzei: Sprav. posobie [Art Museums: Reference manual] (Moscow: Strojizdat, 1991), p. 179. 71 Laboratoria muzeynogo proektirovaniya. Publickacii po hashtegy ‘architectura’ [Museum laboratory group on Facebook; posts with ‘architecture’ hash tag], Facebook < https://www.facebook.com/groups/museumprojecting/search/?query=%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D0 %B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0 > [Accessed 3 September 2017]
36 In the following decades, Russian researchers made an attempt to define museum architecture. According to the Russian Museum Encyclopaedia (2002), “museum architecture” consists of buildings and structures which accommodate museum collections, and the design of a museum building follows the current architectural trends and aesthetics of the time. In general, museum architecture is primarily understood as a physical structure with a strong accent on its functions as storage and exhibition space. This definition lacks focus on those who create the space, offering only a number of names of architects. It also lacks any reference to those who use the space: the visitors and the staff.72
Such a narrow understanding can be explained, perhaps, by a lack of interest in museum architecture as a research object among Russian academics. According to research done by I.A. Sizova, among the 340 museological PhDs published in the period of 1990- 2010, only four works focused on museum architecture.73 In 2012, a thesis entitled “Socio-cultural image of a museum and its architectural embodiment” was presented in St Petersburg by A.V. Chugunova. The author introduced the term “socio-cultural image of a museum” to describe an ideal model typical for a certain period of time. She also uses the term “museum architecture”, defined as a multifunctional instrument which society uses to shape a certain museum model. The focus of the research is quite broad, since the author looks at the development of museum architecture in different countries (including Europe, North and South America, Asia, Australia and Russia) from the late 1940s till the modern period. The aim of Chugunova’s research was to theorise wide practical experience and introduce universal methods that can be used when talking about museum architecture.74 In 2016, another thesis entitled “Museum architecture of the second half of the 20th and the early 21st century” was presented in St Petersburg.75 The goal of the author, Elena Bakushkina, was to investigate the perception of museum spaces by the visitors, specifically the emotional experience. By
72 Marija Terent'evna Majstrovskaja, ‘Arhitektura Muzejnaja’ [Museum Architecture], Rossijskaja muzejnaja jenciklopedija [Russian Museum Encyclopaedia], 1st vol: N-Ja / ed. by V. L. Janin (Moscow: Progress; Ripol klassik, 2001), pp. 48-50. 73 Irina Alekseevna Sizova, Muzejnoe delo v otechestvennyh dissertacionnyh issledovanijah (1990-2010 gg.) [Russian PhDs on Museum Studies: the 1990s-2010s], Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istorija, 3(15) (2011), 136-139. 74 Anastasija Vladimirovna Chugunova, ‘Sociokul'turnyj obraz sovremennogo muzeja’. 75 Elena Sergeevna Bakushkina, ‘Arhitektura muzejnyh zdanij vtoroj poloviny XX – nachala XXI veka’ [architecture of Museum buildings in the second half of the XXth - early XXIst century] (PhD thesis, The Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, 2016)
37 looking at dozens of museum buildings constructed world-wide, she defines four possible scenarios of how these feelings can be provoked. Those scenarios are based on the physical ways people experience the environment around them, such as the sense of touch and sight, as well as their pre-existing personal philosophical views.
While doing micro historical research of the SHM, I referred to broader narratives suggested by the researchers discussed above in order to contextualise the SHM spatial evolution within the development of museum buildings worldwide, as well as to be able to contribute to these narratives by a concrete example from Russia, which is underrepresented within Anglophone museological research.
Museum Building as a Case for Micro Historical Research
The following books provided me with the tools to investigate the history of a particular museum. Opposed to the approaches discussed above, the following one is focused on a concrete museum and its building in a specific moment of time. This section does not contain any Russian examples, so the goal of the section is to enhance my understanding of museum architecture as a complex process of production of space with a number of various parties involved in it. The books discussed below are presented in chronological order so that the development of the approaches to museum buildings can be observed.
John Physick’s book The Victoria and Albert Museum. The History of Its Building, which was published in 1982, resembles Pevsner’s work in some of its features. Firstly, it focuses on the building as a work of art, not on its functions; secondly, it is a piece of rather historicized narrative. Physick carefully describes all the stages of the museum building construction, covering the period between the 1830s and 1909, when the present building was first opened to the public, and lightly touching upon the 1910s. The period between World War I and the late 1970’s is crammed into the last chapter, entitled “Space!”, and offers a rather brief description of some major changes and events of those years. Physick operates under an understanding of museum space that is both conservative and materialistic, restricting it to the original look of the building. This involves both the exterior and the interior, but the latter only in terms of, for
38 instance, wall and ceiling colour; furniture and accessories. The exhibits and the visitors, are viewed as something extraneous.
Another British researcher, J. Mordaunt Crook, presented a book on the architectural history of the British Museum. Crook formulated his main goal as explaining the relationship between the British Museum as an institution and the British Museum as a piece of architecture. Crook viewed buildings as products of society, not only because people live in architecture and look at it, but also because society funds it.76 Crook’s approach to understanding architecture is quite materialistic, focused on finances and political connections. This is quite obvious, for instance, in how he describes the renovation of the mid-19th century, during which the architect, Sir Robert Smirke, had rather significant support in terms of decision-making and finances because of his connections.77 Being an architectural historian, Crook also provided the reader with a comprehensive discussion on the features of Neo-Classical style, exploring the origins of Smirke’s design for the new British Museum.78 Not only did Crook analyse the architectural philosophy behind the project, but he also refuted Pevsner’s argument79 that the British Museum was a descendant of the German museums, such as the aforementioned Glyptothek and the Altes Museum. By exploring Smirke’s drafts and primary sources Crook proved that “the British Museum was essentially British in its conception”.80 Apart from exploring the history of the British Museum, Crook also gave an overview on the history of museums as institutions in various contexts and with regards to its function.
In the 1990s there were a few museum building-related trends among European and American academics. Firstly, some of them continued studying particular museum buildings, for example the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao,81 or the British Museum.82 Secondly, some authors started pursuing new research goals, having absorbed the social
76 Joseph Mordaunt Crook, The British Museum, p. 15 77 Ibid., p. 82 78 Ibid., p. 113 79 Pevsner based the book on his lectures at the National Gallery of Art in Washington in the early 1970s, so we can predict that Crook had access to these materials. 80 Joseph Mordaunt Crook, The British Museum, p. 119” 81 Coosje van Bruggen and Frank O. Gehry, Frank O. Gehry: Guggenheim Museum Bilbao (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 1997). 82 Marjorie Caygill and Christopher Date, Building the British Museum (London: British Museum Press, 1999).
39 and philosophical theories developed in the previous decades. They turned to exhibition design and interiors, looking for deeper meanings in the order of rooms, the items on display and their arrangements.83 The authors also started paying more attention to other types of museums, as opposed to the traditional focus on arts.
In 1999, Carla Yanni produced a book entitled Nature’s Museums: Victorian Science and the Architecture of Display, in which she explored the role of architecture in the construction of knowledge. It seems interesting that her main area of expertise is not limited to museum architecture, if not far from it, since her other works included an analysis of asylum buildings and university campuses. In order to study how museum architecture is influenced by the strategies of representing scientific knowledge, Yanni explored six case studies, all natural history museums of the Victorian era. These were the Hunterian Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, the Museum of Practical Geology, the Oxford University Museum, the Cambridge University Library, the Edinburgh Museum of Science and Art, and the Natural History Museum, London,84 and she places them within various historical contexts, from the earlier 18th century till the late 20th century, each case study forming a separate chapter. The narrative is driven by natural science history, with the author exploring how findings and emerging concepts of the subject were reflected in museum architecture. At this point in time this is Yanni’s first and last book about museum architecture, but she pointed out that there are still quite a few things to be studied in the field, hoping that other researches will be inspired to pursue this topic more deeply and “illuminate the important ways in which architecture manipulates the public perception of truth, and the way in which architecture participates in the social construction of scientific knowledge”.85
Yanni’s book is rare for the 1990s and is an example of a monograph significant in scope and length written on the topic; most of the other authors at that time primarily chose to focus on display work and collections rather than architecture. However, the same period was characterised by “an explosion of museum building, expansion and renovation that has transformed the museum landscape and created some of the world’s
83 For instance, see: 1) Carol Duncan, Civilizing rituals: inside public art museums (London: Routledge, 1995) and 2) Yves Nacher, ‘From medium to message: museum architecture today’, Museum International, October 1997, 49(4), 4-5. 84 Carla Yanni, Nature’s Museums: Victorian Science and the Architecture of display (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press, 1999), p. 2. 85 Ibid., p. 3.
40 most admired architectural forms”,86 which, in turn, led to a similar explosion of works dedicated to the subject. The next period in the 2000s is marked by an abundance of literature on various museum related topics, including museum architecture. For instance, Christopher Whitehead, who is currently a professor of museology at Newcastle University,87 explored the architectural history of the National Gallery in London.
Whitehead divided his book into two parts; in the first part, he observed the existing theoretical framework of how museology perceived architecture and also paid attention to the history of the museum sector in the 19th century in the UK. For instance, a separate chapter is devoted to factual information about what Government bodies were responsible for museum construction in Great Britain in the mid-19th century. Whitehead also explored the evolution of the public museum phenomenon. The second part of the book describes the process of modernisation of the National Gallery in London in 1850-1876.
Whitehead listed the reasons why modernisation was required and described the vigorous debates that arose in the Government and society because of such an important issue. He studied the complex relationships between the people involved in the process, the search for a compromise between the architects and the Government, and the intense antagonism of ideas about what was the right thing to do. While on the one hand Whitehead claimed that the role of museum architecture is merely to “provide the physical frame in which art works could be placed in discursive order”,88 on the other hand he focused much of his research on the building and the circumstances of its modernisation.
Suzanne MacLeod’s89 book Museum Architecture: A New Biography was published in 2013 and focuses on the most important periods in the history of the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool. The physical structure of the building, its history and the history of the area around it, the life of the society which produced and uses it, and the people that
86 Suzanne MacLeod, Museum Architecture, p. 1. 87 Professor Christopher Whitehead, New Castle University, School of Arts and Cultures (staff)
41 form this society are only some of the items that MacLeod’s understanding of architecture comprises. Her main goal is “to explore the nature of museum architecture and the multiple ways in which it is made”.90 Inspired by architectural historian Adrian Forty, philosopher and sociologist Henri Lefebvre, and architectural historian Jonathan Hill, MacLeod views architecture in the following way. Firstly, museum architecture is understood as the result of “social and cultural production” being made and remade through use. Secondly, museum architecture involves “social relations and a medium through which particular social groups consolidate power”.91 The third element of MacLeod’s approach can be described as a “biographic angle”, which means not only telling stories about the people whose lives are/were connected with the museum, but also concentrating on the museum itself, as if it were a living creature.92 MacLeod also participated in collaboration focused on exploring the space of the Imperial War Museum North in order to analyse how the physical space of the museum was perceived by visitors. The question they were trying to answer was if the perception of the physical space correlated with the museum’s mission.93
As can be observed from the discussion above, European and American academics mostly rely on a multidisciplinary approach, especially on socio-cultural context and user perspective, whereas the main Russian tendency is to explore first and foremost the development of physical forms of museum buildings, and analyse tendencies in exhibition design.
By looking at micro historical research of particular museums done by academics from Anglophone countries I learned which kind of primary documents should be taken into account and analysed throughout the research, how to choose periods in museum spatial history to be able to carry out analysis, and how to construct a narrative based on data available.
90 S. MacLeod, Museum Architecture, p. 6. 91 Ibid., p. 7. 92 Ibid. 93 S. MacLeod, J. Dodd, J. and T. Duncan, Developing IWM North, RCMG/IWM, 2014.
42 Soviet Research on Museum Architecture
In 1952 the Ukraine Academy of Architecture published the book Architecture of Museum and Exhibition Buildings written by a Ukrainian architect Musiy Katernoga.94 Despite a lack of information, there is evidence that he designed at least one museum building, a natural science museum in Kiev. It was Katernoga’s PhD project, however, it is unclear if the building was ever erected. It is also unclear if he ever participated in construction or renovation of any other museum buildings.
In the book, the author looks at museum buildings and their evolution in time, zoning principles, exhibition areas, and infrastructure, such as lighting and HVAC systems. He focuses on ways of making a museum visit a comfortable experience: recreation zones which could contain a cafeteria or issues like visibility of items on display. Perhaps, because of the environment in which the book was written, i.e. widespread construction works and development, or because of the author’s area of expertise, there are no guidelines or discussions on how to improve existing museum buildings. Instead, Katernoga focuses on recent projects, most of which were museums of political history, and offers recommendations such as room size, distance between the viewer and the object, light levels, and others related to infrastructure and space allocation in future buildings.
What appears to be important regarding the book is the fact that Katernoga analyses Western museum buildings, not only those constructed in the 19th to early 20th centuries, but also contemporary ones, mainly in the USA. His approach can be characterised as highly critical, and in many ways biased: he predominantly describes their negative attributes, and never focuses on achievements. The style may have been chosen intentionally, as it was the only way to share valuable information regarding these museums with the specialists in the USSR.
While talking about American museums, Katernoga described the newly erected building of Museum of Modern Art in New York and emphasized its simplicity, and lack of any kind of traditional architectural aesthetics expressed through interior and
94 M.T. Katernoga, Arhitektura muzejnyh i vystavochnyh zdanij [Architecture of museum and exhibition buildings] (Kiev: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Arhitektury Ukrainskoj SSR, 1952)
43 exterior decorations;95 since the author does not provide any explanation why such style was used to display contemporary art, it was quite challenging for him to remain objective, especially as he ignored the context in which these built forms emerged and the features of specific collections. For instance, Katernoga criticised Western museum buildings for not being able to promote national identity, while it may never have been part of their mission in the first place.96 It is unclear, however, which sources Katernoga referred to while working on the book. Since communication between the USSR and Western countries was limited at that time, it is possible to assume that Katernoga did not have enough data to perform a thorough analysis of the subject.
The second section of his book is dedicated to Soviet museum buildings; the order of sections was meant to purposefully compare the ‘right’ (Soviet) and ‘wrong’ (Western) way of making museum architecture. Katernoga analysed a number of Russian museum buildings, among them the Hermitage, the Russian Museum, and the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. While he did mention others, there is an obvious preference for art museums in his work. He mentioned the SHM building only once; the Vasnetsov wall frescoes in Hall 2 were a notable example of interior decoration. Katernoga outlined the preferable way of designing museum buildings, which can be described as the following: bringing socialist content and national form together.97 According to him, such an approach was implemented in the following museum buildings in the southern part of the USSR: the Museum of Bolshevik organisations of Azerbaijan in Baku (the 1920s), the State Museum of Georgia in Tbilisi (1929), and the Museum of Nisami in Baku (1939). Each of these buildings contained elements of early 19th century museum buildings, such as monumentality and spaciousness of forms, and decoration in the national style. The author did not provide any data regarding contemporary museum buildings in Moscow or Leningrad, however, he paid significant attention to exhibition pavilions both in Moscow and Kiev, as well as those used for the World Expo in New York.
Katernoga introduced the term ‘architectural-artistic appearance’, and while he did not offer any clear definition of what it meant, by analysing the text and exploring further
95 M.T. Katernoga, Arhitektura muzejnyh i vystavochnyh zdanij, pp. 75-76. 96 Ibid, p. 77. 97 Ibid, p. 116.
44 explanations offered by other authors it is possible to understand the meaning. In general, it is the sum of architectural elements of the building, both outside and inside, formed/based on a certain concept. In early museum architecture works it is used quite narrowly, as the concept behind any exhibition space was the superiority of communist ideology. This view assigns architecture a strictly secondary role.
Despite the fact that the book is highly politicised and biased, it provided readers with guidelines on how to design museum buildings approached as an instrument for promoting Soviet ideology. It appears, though, that it did not have a major effect on the industry for unclear reasons, one of which may have been the overuse of references to Stalin, contradicting the emerging ‘destalinization’ trend.
The next Soviet book dedicated exclusively to museum architecture came out 20 years later. However, other professional sources sometimes referred to the topic, and their content may have been even more influential on the field than the architecture-only books. In 1955, the very first comprehensive USSR study guide Soviet Museology Basics98 was published. Two members of the SHM staff, Anna Zaks and Anna Mikhailovskaya, contributed to it by writing the section on exhibition development. I would like to focus on the content and structure of this book, which, being the first of its kind in the USSR, laid a foundation for how to understand a museum as an institution, outline its functions, and develop methods to perform them. Since the mid-1950s, a number of other museological study guides were published in Russia, 99 and it can be seen that most of them followed the structure proposed in the 1955 edition.
The 1955 study guide is divided into seven chapters, the introduction and six content chapters, covering topics of defining museums as institutions, collecting items, collection research,100 storage, exhibition development and public outreach.101 As can be seen from this list, attention was given primarily to collections, whereas the audiences were the lowest priority. The core museum functions were collecting,
98 P. I. Galkina, ed. 99 For instance, T. Yu. Yureneva, Muzeevedenie [Museum Studies] (Moscow: Akademicheskij Proekt, 2003) and Muzejnoe delo Rossii [Museum work in Russia], ed. by M. E. Kaulen, I. M. Kossova and A. A. Sundieva, 3rd edn (Moscow: VK, 2010) 100 They didn’t use the word management 101 The actual term used in the guide is ‘museum mass work’ (massovaya rabota muzeev), which could mean large-scale audience engagement events, but to a reader familiar with Soviet language ‘mass’ usually means ‘propaganda’.
45 preserving, and exhibiting museum objects – authentic items that would serve as primary sources in the investigation of the past.102 The priority of collections over audiences is a feature that has been embedded in almost every Russian museology study guide and, 103 to a certain extent, in most Soviet museum buildings.
Buildings were also discussed in the 1955 book, both the interiors and the building as a whole as a facility that requires engineering maintenance. In the chapter devoted to storage, museum buildings were characterized in terms of engineering requirements, such as electricity, usage of metal constructions, or heating, and security; for instance, fire protection measures and onsite equipment, mainly aimed at collections preservation. According to the guide, all systems had to be tested at least twice a year. It also stated that the director and the head of collections had to examine storage facilities on a regular basis. As for storage facilities themselves, the study guide provided readers with comprehensive recommendations on how to preserve different kinds of objects using climate control and specially designed furniture. In other words, the book offered detailed advice within a very narrow framework of understanding museum architecture.
The chapter on exhibition development also contains recommendations on interior decoration, however, most of it is dedicated to the organisational processes behind exhibitions and a discussion of the parties involved: curatorial staff, 104 designers (who in Soviet terminology would be called artists), and the museum director, who was responsible for approving all of the decisions. The study guide offered a step-by-step description of exhibition development.
The role of design was assumed to be auxiliary; for instance, it was clearly stated that museum interiors could not distract visitors from observing the original objects. In terms of decoration, it meant that interiors could and had to be decorated, albeit rather modestly. For instance, in the case of historical museums, it was possible to introduce those elements that could help to visualize a certain period of history. However, the book clearly stated that it was unprofessional to use collection items for decorative
102 P. I. Galkina, ed., p. 25. 103 L. M. Shlyakhtina, Osnovy muzejnogo dela. Teorija i praktika [Museum Basics. Theory and practice] (Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 2009); M. Kaulen et al. (eds.), Muzejnoe delo Rossii [Museum work in Russia]; Osnovy muzeevedeniya [Basics of Museum Studies], ed. by E. Shulepova, 4th edn (Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2015). 104 P. I. Galkina, ed., pp. 302-326.
46 purposes only. The way this chapter of the book was written resembles the SHM documentation on the same issue discussed in Chapter 5 of this thesis. Since two members of the SHM staff took part in the creation of the book, they could have shared their position on the matter. What is even more important is that original interiors in those buildings that were converted into museums could be preserved if they complemented the objects on display. Buildings where memorial museums were located had to be preserved without any changes to the exterior and interior decorations, an idea that possibly served as foundation for the monument protection movement.
The book contains basic advice on colouring and lighting, based on scientific research around psychological perception of colours, such as the idea of red causing fatigue, and the combination of natural and artificial light. It should be also stressed that the book suggested that museum staff had to learn museum design to be able to critically assess the work of an artist; at the same time artists had to study the content carefully to choose the right means of expression for the idea of the exhibition.
Both Katernoga’s book and the 1955 guide illustrate the way in which museum buildings in Soviet Russia were mainly considered as facilities to perform museum functions, primarily in the form of exhibiting objects: their engineering features had to provide suitable conditions for collection care and preservation, whereas interior decoration was viewed as background for the objects on display. Such an approach would enable museums to educate Soviet people about a variety of subjects by using Marx’s and Lenin’s approaches for their interpretation, which meant that museum content should be presented according to the concept of economic formation of society. 105 It should, however, be said here that the ubiquity of these authors in Soviet life made the presence of their ideas in any sphere almost exclusively perfunctory, a possible comparison is quoting the Bible in a highly religious country, which does not necessarily mean being pious at the moment of quoting. The requirement to address the ideology for most authors and exhibition designers meant making occasional references to Marxist philosophy while, essentially, doing their jobs. The presence of these quotes
105 Pervyj Vserossiyskiy Muzeinuy Siezd. Dekabr’ 1930. Tezisy dokladov [The First All-Russian Congress of Museum Workers. December 1930. Proceedings] (Leningrad: LOOSRP. Muzeynaya Komissiaya, 1930).
47 does not change the fact that the core of the book is, first and foremost, comprised of practical advice.
Neither Katernoga, nor Zaks and Mikhailovskaya, discuss museum buildings and their maintenance from a financial angle, the possible reason being the fact that museums were funded by the Soviet Government, so museum staff did not have an incentive to address their financial solvency, as they were not dependent on admission fees, grants, and donations. They could, however, concentrate on research and exhibition development instead. This prevalence of the ‘artistic’ over the administrative was maintained in most of Soviet and Russian museum literature even well after the capitalist reforms of the 1990s.
Museum Building as a Manageable Facility
To begin with, management, including organisational structure, inner regulations, procedures and facility care, is not a completely new concept for museums. Even though this area of professional practice was first theorised quite recently (in the 1980s), it is possible to find sources from the 1840s and later, that discuss practice-oriented managerial issues. It should also be mentioned that from the very beginning those who worked in museums have been dealing with collections, exhibitions, buildings, and all other core elements of a museum as we know it today. They did not manage them in our modern understanding of the term, but in some way establishing the foundations for further development of museum management. Proof of this can be found in museum archives, which can host, for instance, early versions of mission statements, minutes of meetings explaining the decision-making process, lists of tasks to be completed, and financial documentation. Those who dealt with museum buildings most likely did not refer to themselves as managers, museum professionals, or museum workers, but rather identified as archaeologists, historians, and other scientists. However, they would perform these tasks empirically, without referring to management theory, which was only beginning to develop in the early 20th century.106 The section provides review on key texts on facility management, the majority of which are in English. However, during the research it became possible to identify several texts in Russian which can be
106 Michael A. Fopp, Managing Museums and Galleries (London: Routledge, 1997)
48 considered as examples of facility management literature. By analysing these texts, I was able to outline a set of principles regarding museum buildings management, which can be used while researching a particular case study.
If we take a look at recent publications dedicated to museum management, we can see that most of them provide readers with “how-to” everyday strategies, 107 or with a detailed analysis of particular case studies. However, only a few authors, such as Michael Fopp, give attention to the history of management. A former Director General of the Royal Air Force Museum in the UK, Fopp opens his book Managing Museums and Galleries with a historical chapter and, what is even more important, critically discusses every stage and shows how these theories could be applied to modern museum practices. Fopp begins with a discussion of scientific management developed by W. Taylor in the early 1900s, which was based on a strong belief that there was one best possible method to do a certain task, and the role of a manager was to analyse methods available in order to find this method and then implement it.108
Fopp then moves on to more recent approaches, such as, in order of emergence, the quantitative, classical, human relations, systems, contingency theory, and situational theories. The quantitative approach, also known as Management Science, was developed in the 1960-1970s, which coincided with the appearance of the first computers within the public sector. It was aimed at implementing scientific methods, and more precisely, mathematical models, to find solutions based on data available by using computer software. The classical approach, the first traces of which can be found back in the 1910s, was introduced by Henri Fayol, a French mining engineer; the approach is based on four stages of the managerial process which include planning (setting goals, scheduling, budgeting), directing (implementing approved plans), organising (bringing the personnel and tasks together to achieve goals in the most effective ways), and controlling (measuring and evaluating the achievement of goals). The human relations approach, developed in the 1940s, was focused on social relations between members of staff and with their administrators, aiming to analyse the impact of those relations on the overall working process.
107 Authors of these type of books usually do not pay any particular attention to the history of the discipline, and this is quite surprising, since it is museums that care about the history and often refer to it as a way to understand the present time and look into the future. 108 Michael A. Fopp, Managing Museums and Galleries, p.8
49
Systems approach, which has been evolving since the 1930s, is based on considering the work process as a system of elements which have impact on each other and on the whole process; such an approach can be used in order to perform standardized tasks, as well as to simplify complex projects. Contingency and situational theories, which have been developing since the 1970s, consider circumstances as a factor that has a great impact on the working process; there is no right or best way of performing tasks that can be easily implemented in every case, which is why it is crucial to analyse the circumstances of each case. According to Fopp, there is no perfect theory, therefore he stresses the need for a mix of approaches, with a particular focus on human relations approach and the contingency theory, since the latter perfectly fits with the everchanging environment in which museums operate perfectly.
Another feature of Fopp’s book that seems important within the context of a discussion on Russian and British museum practices and their differences is the attitude to management within the museum sector, which he described as having ‘a somewhat uncertain status in museums, both as an academic discipline and as a basis for practical action – few museum curators are proud of being good managers’.109 Fopp’s book was published in 1997, and, perhaps, for many museums in Britain, this is no longer an issue: for instance, in the document describing Tate’s structure back in 2010, one can see a number of job titles which include ‘manager’ in them,110 and the British Museum has an online section on its website dedicated to museum management.111
Even though some large museums, like those mentioned above, have successfully introduced managerial practices on an everyday basis, Fopp’s statement can still be relevant for some museums both in Russia and abroad. The same attitude to management can be seen within universities, and perhaps, other cultural and educational institutions such as, for instance, libraries and archives. The reason for that could be that knowledge and culture production have been the principal activities of these organisations for decades, whereas management can be seen as something that does not
109Michael A. Fopp, Managing Museums and Galleries, p.30. 110 Tate. Transparency Agenda 2010, 2010.
50 create any product, only assisting in organising the process. In the case of Russia, for instance, “an art manager” has become a kind of derogating, often used to describe an emerging professional who, knowing nothing about the reality of the museum profession, tries to bring often useless commercial methods into ‘sacred’ museum space. However, since the 1990s and the early 2000s, when such attitudes were prevalent, the situation has begun to change, and now management is perceived as an effective tool for performing museum functions. It should be mentioned that there is still a significant lack of museum management sources, and even appropriate language in Russia at the moment, and this is the reason the content of this section is based primarily on European and American sources.
Within the field of modern management there are a number of different areas, such as human relations, finance, projects, risk, resources, and among them – facility management (FM). FM views buildings as facilities, thus underlining the importance of function rather than form. Definitions of FM may vary, possibly because of “its rapid development as a profession”.112 What is common for most of these definitions is the physicality of the environment which, if maintained properly, would support an organisation’s main goals and activities; FM is also about bringing together people and built environments by creating comfortable, safe, and convenient spaces that would enhance staff members’ efficiency.
The first mention of FM can be traced back to the 1960s, when the term itself was used by H. Ross Perot, the founder of Electronic Data systems.113 It would seem that the introduction of the FM concept coincided with (and, possibly, was brought on by) the dawn of computerization. As it was pointed out by Jane Wiggins, “FM was the introduction of computers in the workplace”.114 Computers not only influenced facility infrastructure, but also inner space design, including furniture,115 and during the forthcoming decades FM developed at a high pace. In the 1980s and the 1990s, a number of professional organisations were established, among them the International Association of Museum Facility Administrators (IAMFA), founded by George Preston,
112 Fopp, Michael A., Managing Museums and Galleries, p. 5. 113 Electronic Data Systems (EDS) was an American multinational information technology equipment and services company headquartered in Plano, Texas. 114 Edmond P. Rondeau, Robert Kevin Brown and Paul D. Lapides, Facility Management (New York: Wiley, 2006), p.1. 115 Ibid.
51 the Director of Physical Plant at the Art Institute of Chicago, with several other colleagues from the field.116 Since that time, IAMFA has launched a number of conferences aimed at bringing together professionals whose responsibilities include a wide range of tasks related to cultural facilities preservation, renovation, and maintenance.117 Since that time, IAMFA has been publishing a quarterly magazine, the Papyrus, which contains articles on both case studies and guidelines on, for instance, microclimate control, emergency evacuation, benchmarking theory, and others.
Some of the first published sources on museum management were published in 1840,118 1883,119 and 1895. I would like to focus on the latter one, Principles of Museum Administration, written by George Brown Goode. The reason to focus on this particular paper is the fact that it absorbed outcomes from the two earliest sources, and can be considered as the very first attempt to outline a set of museum management principles. George Brown Goode was an ichthyologist and museum administrator from the Smithsonian. He presented his views on museum management during a Museums Association conference which took place in Newcastle in the same year and his paper was published in the Museums Association annual report. 120 Goode considers museums as ‘institutions [...] for the increase of knowledge and for the culture and enlightenment of the people’.121 ‘A suitable building’122 is among five ‘cardinal necessities in museum administration’.123 While talking about museum buildings, Goode focuses on their infrastructure, for instance, on the need for buildings to be fire protected. As for exterior and interior decoration, it should follow the goal of supporting collections. Goode stresses the need for thorough decision-making processes regarding the mission of a future museum, and suggests no erection of a building before the mission is clarified.124
116 2015 IAMFA Annual Conference, (n.d.)
52 Another example of discussion on management issues within the museum sector can be found in The Museum: A Manual of the Housing and Care of Art Collections, published in 1917. Margaret Talbot Jackson, assistant director of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts and later Curator of Textiles at Yale University Art Gallery, visited dozens of museums across the USA and Europe during the 1910s, and critically assessed them from the managerial point of view. She opens the book with chapters on museum buildings, providing readers with a number of examples, most of which can be considered as failures and mistakes for museum managers to refer to when planning a new, or renovating an existing, museum. Thus, for instance, while building a new museum in Germany, the architect did not include any staff offices in the final layout, which went unnoticed by the other decision makers, resulting in last-minute reduction of exhibition space. While talking about American museums, the author criticises grand staircases which American architects try to include in museum buildings, such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, without paying attention to museum operations that have to be performed within these facilities: ‘An architect seems to feel that objects grow in the museum and that it is not necessary to provide a special door for them to come in.’125
The book is full of lively comments, for instance, ‘Fire, theft and dust are the great enemies of the museum director’,126 or ‘the first step in planning a new museum is not to open a competition for the design of the building, but to choose a director’127. The book is a rare example of bringing together multiple case studies from various countries, all listed for the reader’s convenience at the end. What is even more important, the author’s work is both applicable in terms of general principles and as a source of specific detailed advice.
One of the first comprehensive Russian works on museums and their establishment was published in 1919, it is Nikolay Romanov’s Mestnye muzei i kak ih ustraivat' [Local museums and how to arrange them]. It can be considered as a source on museum management, since the author pays attention to the role of the museum, ways it can be funded, and responsibilities of members of staff. Romanov was an art history professor at the Moscow State University, where he worked alongside Ivan Tcvetaev, the founder
125 Margaret Talbot Jackson, The museum: a manual of the housing and care of art collections (New York; London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1917), p. 16 126 Ibid., p. 51. 127 Ibid., p. 13.
53 and the first director of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. During 1910 -1923, Romanov was a curator of Art and Ancient Treasures at the Rumyantsev Museum, and in 1923-1928 he was the director of the aforementioned Pushkin Museum. He understood local museums as museums dedicated to local history, art, and culture, and the goal of his book was to share his own experience and European and American practices, and propose a manual on how to establish and run such a facility. In two chapters out of seven, Romanov discussed museum buildings, staff, and funding. According to the book, the following aspects have to be taken into account: aims and needs of a museum, both current and future, with a strong focus on local community features and its expectations; and content of the collections and the way they have to be exhibited so that the architecture would follow the content, not the other way round. His understanding of architecture was that it had to be produced within a certain context and be in harmony with it, without directly copying elements. Romanov specifically stressed the need for thorough planning before starting construction and the importance of administrative work, however dull it may seem to the more creative curatorial staff. He also specified that the person in charge has to be a professional administrator. It seems, however, that the book did not have a significant effect on the sector, perhaps because it came out at an inopportune time in the middle of the Civil War.
Another early book on museum management that cannot be ignored was published in the United States in 1927. Manual for Small Museums was written by Laurence Vail Coleman,128 one of the most influential American museum practitioners of the mid-20th century. The book was the result of intensive field research which Coleman conducted in the early 1920s by visiting hundreds of American museums. While Coleman focuses mainly on small museums in terms of size of their buildings and collections, the guidelines he provided can be easily applied to any kind of a museum regardless of its size. Despite being published almost nine decades ago, this book seems to be relevant in most of its parts, including the one on museum buildings.129 Coleman opens with a quite straightforward statement about his view of priorities: that before actually constructing a building for a museum, it is crucial to build it as an organisation.130 Coleman also stresses the need for being critical when choosing the leading architect; not only does
128 Laurence Vail Coleman, Manual for small museums (New York, London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1927) 129 Ibid., pp. 297-320 130 Ibid., p. 297
54 the architect have to be qualified and experienced, but also (s)he has to pay significant attention to the museum’s functional requirements, and although Coleman does not provide any further comments in this particular section, it is quite clear from the book’s table of contents that he means curatorial spaces, visitor zones, offices, and other museum-related services, as well as exhibition areas.131 These functional requirements have to be clearly articulated by the museum administration who are responsible for getting the message across to the architect. As for the location of the museum, Coleman argues for the need to think strategically and keep in mind the future expansion which can be the result, for instance, of growing audiences and/or collections.132 Coleman’s ideas also sound similar to a more modern view of the city as an ever changing built environment, as he views the piece of land for the future museum as a part of the city, which itself might change, thus creating new circumstances to which the museum will need to adapt.133 While talking about the principles of museum planning and functional zoning, Coleman suggests applying guidelines on library buildings, since those institutions have much more experience in the field compared to museums.134 Coleman also focuses a great deal on the infrastructure, such as heating and air conditioning.135
Coleman’s work, although written almost a century ago, is a product of a highly professional museum specialist, who constantly reminds his readers to care about the visitor’s comfort and experience as much as about the collections and research. He also formulates the crucial principles that are so often forgotten even now: the importance of good planning, communicating and learning from mistakes, appreciating professionalism when hiring staff, and consulting with other specialists when necessary.136
Eight years later, in 1935, A Manual for History Museums by Arthur C. Parker from Rochester Museum of Art and Sciences was published. The author considers museums as social institutions which should provoke curiosity instead of being ‘dead things’ put
131 Ibid., pp.298-299 132 Ibid., p.299 133 Ibid., pp. 299-300 134 Ibid., pp. 301-303. 135 Ibid., p. 319. 136 Arthur Caswell Parker, A manual for history museums (New York: Columbia University Press, 1935), pp. 15-16.
55 in ‘the atmosphere of a funeral parlour’.137 One of the chapters is dedicated to museum buildings, and special attention is given to the role of an architect in the project. The author stresses the need for a careful investigation of all ‘museum purposes and methods’,138 which should be examined by the architect in advance. According to Parker, an ideal museum should host not only exhibition, laboratory and classroom space, a lecture hall and a library, but also shop, cloakroom and lavatory spaces, as well as everything necessary for proper functioning: office and storage spaces, fumigation rooms, a packing and receiving room and even kitchen and dining areas for the staff. Even though some of the specific pieces of advice in the book cannot be used today due to, for instance, emerging visitors’ needs, it is still a valuable source on the history of facility management practices within museums.
During the period between the 1960s and 1980s a large number of books and articles on museum management was issued, and among them there was a certain amount of literature dedicated to museum infrastructure and technical requirements.139 For instance, in 1966 the Canadian Museums Association published The Technical Requirements of Small Museums, a manual for small-scale organisations going through construction of new buildings. The manual mainly focuses on museum planning, providing readers with step-by-step instructions of how to run such a project. Again, as in Coleman’s book, Raymond O. Harrison, the author of the manual, approaches the museum building as a functional space, where each function has to be assigned to a specially designed area, taking into account the possibility of future expansion.140 A special chapter is dedicated to environmental control, including heating, lighting, and ventilation.141
One year later, in 1967, a booklet on the control of museum environment was published in London.142 The 8-page booklet offers technical recommendations on how to maintain
137 Ibid., p. xi. 138 Ibid., p. 41. 139 Annotated bibliography on the topic can be found in: Frances Halsband, Technical requirements for small museums: an annotated bibliography (Hamilton, N.Y.: Gallery Association of New York State, 1982) 140 Raymond O. Harrison, The Technical Requirements of Small Museums. Technical Paper No. 1. (Ottawa: Canadian Museums Association, 1966), p. 8. 141 Ibid., pp. 17-18. 142 International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, Control of the museum environment: a basic summary (London: IIC, 1967).
56 comfortable and safe environments for museum objects. Even though this particular issue does not have any direct connection to management, it can be included in the history of museum facility management, since the preservation of museum objects both on displays and in storage soon became a separate area of practice and academic research. Thus, for instance, in 1995, May Cassar, a conservator and environmental engineer, published a book entitled Environmental Management: Guidelines for Museums and Galleries,143 which aimed at providing museum staff with a comprehensive understanding of strategic approach to this area.
In 1969, the Training Committee of the Canadian Museums Association published a book entitled Basic Museum Management,144 designed to help staff members of small museums to think “functionally” about museums. As it is mentioned in the preface, in 1969 the volume was included on the list of “required reading for candidates attempting both the Correspondence Course and Level 1 of the training program of the Canadian Museums Association”. The authors’ understanding of museums is based on the functional approach, meaning that every museum performs a certain set of functions, and each of its parts has to do so properly. The same is true of museum buildings, which are described in a separate chapter, accompanied with a list of references. Buildings, alongside collections, staff and community, are considered to be resources which should be used efficiently in order to achieve the museum’s goals.145 According to the book, there is a certain number of functional zones that have to be included in each museum building; among them exhibition areas, administrative facilities, curatorial space, a library, sales desk, building services, and washroom facilities. In cases where a museum is about to move to a new building, it has to be extremely careful while choosing the future location in terms of infrastructure and accessibility.
In the 1970s there were no particular publications dedicated to facility management, however, during this period one of the most remarkable books on marketing in arts was published: Marketing for non-profit organisations by P. Kotler.146 What is even more
143 May Cassar, Environmental management: guidelines for museums and galleries (London; New York: Routledge, 1995) 144 George B. MacBeath and Sidney James Gooding, Basic museum management (Ottawa, Canadian Museums Association, 1969) 145 Ibid., p. 35 146 Philip Kotler, Marketing for nonprofit organisations (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975)
57 important, in 1972 the UNESCO "Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage" was published; 147 it came into effect in 1975. Even though it was ratified by the USSR as late as in 1988,148 the Government had been developing local legislation in that area from the 1920s.
The period of the 1980s was characterised by increased professional communication on museum management, which resulted in some further steps in FM development. First of all, it is worth mentioning that in April 1984 a seminar on museum building management took place at the Victoria and Albert Museum.149 Another important event that occurred in October 1984 was the meeting of the ICOM international committee for the training personnel, at which the need for management literacy for museum workers was first articulated.150 The annual meeting took place in the Netherlands, and as a result a number of suggestions were offered, including providing training and creating a network for museum professionals to share the most current literature and advice.151 As for the content of the meeting, I would like to refer to Geoffrey Lewis’152 keynote talk, in which he stressed the need for understanding museum processes and operations before applying management techniques; he also suggested conducting research into museum operations.153 Management itself was analysed from people’s perspectives, both the museum staff and the visitors. According to Lewis, museum directors and administration had to help their staff to learn about management as much as possible in order to work efficiently, thus meeting the public’s needs.154
The idea of bringing museology and management together received further development in Peter van Mensch’s keynote address; 155 he paid attention to the evolution of the
147 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, in Basic Texts of the 1972 World Heritage Convention (Paris: UNESCO, 2005), pp. 7-22;
58 organisation structure at large museums, which went from “all functions united” to “differentiation into functional sub-systems”.156 Such differentiation required new skills, which could be either developed by the existing museum staff, or brought from the outside, for instance, by hiring a freelance consultant.157 As it can be observed from the other papers, other issues discussed during the meeting included marketing, finance, information technology, and management experiences in Third World museums; facility management was not given special attention. What can be added here is that one of the most structured approaches to museum management was presented by Jane R. Glaser, the head of the Office of Museum Programs at the Smithsonian; it included a discussion on strategic planning as a team effort, and examples of methods, goals, and resources that can be implemented in museums. The meeting in Leiden continued the discussion for the need for special management training and formed a foundation for further development.
1984 culminated in the publishing of the very first comprehensive issue of the International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship dedicated to facility management. The issue covered a number of topics, including building services. Alfred Reading, Principle Engineer at the Museums and Galleries group, stressed the need for considering physical environment as an integral part “of maintaining any collection of art treasures”.158 He insisted that it was necessary to explain these building issues to staff members in order to inform them about their importance and role in achieving a museum’s mission.
Another topic that was explored in the Journal was building strategies: Ian Caldwell, an architect at the Museums and Galleries group, by comparing a museum building to a living body, which functions constantly and requires very special conditions, argues for the need of a strategic approach when it comes to both development and everyday facility management. The author underlines the need for thorough investigation of almost every part of the building.
156 Peter van Mensch, ed., The management needs of museum personnel, pp. XV-XVII, pp. 10. 157 Ibid., pp. XV-XVII, pp. 11. 158 Alfred Reading, Building Services, The International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 3 (1984), p. 342
59 One more article in the Journal seems important; Hermann Kruger’s Planning and Layout of Museums, in which he discussed the role of museologists in the building planning process. Being a freelance architect, Kruger worked mainly in GDR, the socialist part of Germany. His article can be considered as a valuable source on Eastern museological thought, which was promoted by the USSR.159
The 1990s are also characterised by a large number of sources on museum management, and there are at least two types of these: study guides for students and comprehensive manuals for professionals, such as Forward Planning: a Handbook of Business, Corporate and Development Planning for Museums and Galleries edited by Ambrose and Runyard, Museum Management edited by Moore, Museum Basics by Ambrose and Paine, and The Manual of Museum Planning edited by B. Lord and G. Lord.
Forward Planning, first published in 1991, is a collection of essays written by professionals in the field. The main focus of the book is on planning, which is viewed as a management tool to help develop strategies and implement them into everyday museum practices.160 It is possible to outline three topics related to museum buildings: engineering, environmental control, and security.
In one of the essays, Maintenance by Ron Essex, Estate Manager at the Natural History Museum, there is a focus on three basic points which each estate manager should take into consideration when it comes to physical maintenance of a museum building. Firstly, the author insists that it is important to know the estate: collect as much information about the facility as possible. It can include, for instance, the analysis of the layout of floor areas, equipment service schedule requirements, and architectural drawings. Based on step one, the manager needs to identify and plan for its maintenance needs, including long-term planning, at least five years in advance. Resources to meet those needs have to be evaluated and budgeted for.161
159 Hermann Krüger, Planning and layout of museums: The central importance of the room, The International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 3(4) (1984), 351-356. 160 Forward planning: a handbook of business, corporate and development planning for museums and galleries, ed. by Tim Ambrose and Sue Runyard (London: Museums & Galleries Commission, in conjunction with Routledge, 1991), p. x 161 Ibid., p. 70
60 Physical parameters of museum buildings are the main concern of May Cassar, the Environmental Adviser at Museums and Galleries Commission. In her essay, she focuses on the environment in which museum collections are stored and displayed. According to Cassar, collections’ preservation is a fundamental part of museum work, which is why physical parameters such as humidity, lighting, temperature, and others should be taken into account when planning any kind of renovation or extension to an existing building. All these parameters should be monitored and controlled carefully so that it would be possible to formulate the requirements for the designing stages of the project. Cassar stresses the need for thorough research before taking any action; she recommends monitoring the environment for at least a year before the renovation would take place.162 Bryan Dovey, a Museum Security Advisor, also suggests conducting research before making any changes in the existing settings; the research should include an investigation of crime levels in the area and ways of preventing both natural and man-made disasters, such as, for instance, fire or floods.
Those three topics discussed above were further explored at Delivering a Successful Museum Building conference which took place in October 1998 at the Royal Armoury Museum, Leeds. Conference proceedings were published in the following year, and the structure and order of the papers cover all the stages of museum building projects. In the opening paper May Cassar, the editor of the book, explains the heightened interest to museum buildings as a result of a large number of capital projects taking place both in the UK and abroad. According to Cassar, despite the number of these projects, museum professionals were still unaware of how they needed to be involved in the processes, so the aim of the conference was to share knowledge and expertise on the subject. Cassar’s main point was that facilities should be studied carefully, since every piece of data gathered during research can be useful to make informed decisions.163
The need for research is the main topic of a paper written in 1999 by Chris Twinn, the then associate director at Ove Arup and Partners, a design, engineer and construction company. Twinn identifies three types of research within a building project. The first type is asking the question, ‘What has been done so far in the field?’. As a result, a number of typical solutions can be outlined. The author underlines the importance of
162 Ibid., pp. 96-101 163 May Cassar, Delivering a successful museum building (Leeds: Royal Armouries Museum, 1999), p. 4
61 each member contributing and sharing all of the information they possess in order to compile the most comprehensive list possible. He refers to the second type of research as the blue-sky one: a kind of academic work which usually takes a significant amount of time to complete, and the limitations of a typical project are the reason this tactic is not recommended on a regular basis. The last research type is exploring new techniques: going outside the field for solutions to find those methods and tools that are used in other spheres and sectors; for instance, in for profit companies.164
One of the issues discussed in Delivering a Successful Museum Building was curators’ involvement in the facility management process. Using an example of the British Museum, Susan Bradley, Head of Conservation Research group, explains the role of the curator in the designing process; it is the curator who knows almost everything about collections and their preservation requirements, therefore, it is highly recommended to ask curators to prepare environmental briefs in advance and use them as an integral part of the designing process.165
The books discussed in the following paragraphs were published in the late 1990s, and they share the same feature: they bring together almost every topic that was discussed separately in the previous sources. They can be characterised as guidelines on how to perform certain projects and tasks, however, they sometimes lack case studies and specific details.
Manual of Museum Planning edited by B. Lord and G. Lord was first published in 1999. It is a coherent source on the museum planning process; all the essays are divided into three groups: planning for people, collections, and construction. The latter is designed as a manual to use during either building a new facility or adapting the existing building to host a museum. It should be mentioned that the research process is briefly discussed in the section dedicated to the creation of a corporate plan – a comprehensive document which should specify a number of items, including a piece of writing on the origins and the history of a particular museum.166
164 May Cassar, Delivering a successful museum building, pp. 19-22 165 Ibid., pp. 31-35 166 Lord, Gail Dexter and Barry Lord, The Manual of Museum Planning, p. 258
62 One of the sections of Museum Basics,167 a textbook on museum studies, is dedicated to buildings, which are viewed as forms designed to follow museum functions. As in the previous book, the section is clearly structured, providing readers with an overview of all possible tasks related to facility management, among those planning the new building, with a strong focus on analysis and feasibility assessment, maintenance, security, and visitor perspective on using the building. This latter topic makes this study rather exceptional, since visitor engagement is usually studied within marketing and social studies. In this case, however, the authors pay attention to orientation and signage, and also the atmosphere, pace, and flow.168 Those three parameters are discussed through the lens of design and staff perspectives. The authors discuss such issues regarding space usage as ‘museum fatigue’, the need for clear signage, and even cafeteria location.
The mid-2000s brought new editions of some of the classics in the field, such as Museum Basics and Lord and Lord’s book. Large museums, for instance, the Smithsonian, now have FM departments within their organisational structure.169 The IAMFA continues to organise annual conferences.170 Nevertheless, there is still a lack of publications, both practical and academic, on museum facility management. The rare exception here is a book by Smithsonian members of staff Angela Person-Harm and Judie Cooper, The Care and Keeping of Cultural Facilities, published in 2014. The book summarises knowledge gained by the Smithsonian Office of Facilities Management and Reliability (OFMR), one of the leading institutions in the field. The OFMR defines facility management as ‘integration of people, places and processes to safely operate, maintain, repair, support and ensure the performance integrity of the built environment for its original, intended purpose’.171 Today OFMR has approximately 900 full-time employees, who are responsible for 769 facilities. The book is full of both practice-based advice and relevant case studies, primarily in the
167 Timothy Ambrose and Crispin Paine, Museum Basics, 3rd edn (Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, 2012) 168 Ibid., pp. 334-336 169 About us exceptional facilities, amazing experience, Smithsonian Institution. The Office of Facilities Management and Reliability (OFMR), (n.d.)
63 American museum sector. The bookis comprised of ten chapters, 172 which cover almost every possible area of facility management, such as strategic planning, cultural facility systems management, capital improvement planning, risk management, special events, and training of facility management staff. The range of duties within those areas differs significantly, from organizing a president’s visit to checking availability of toilet paper. It is a comprehensive guide that introduces the complexity of the profession, which requires understanding of both managerial principles and engineering infrastructure in order to be able to use the facility in the most efficient way. Other qualities that are strongly recommended are sound knowledge of the most recent trends in facility management itself, such as sustainability and energy efficiency, and excellent communication skills, since the facility manager has to collaborate with every department of the museum. Based on their experience at the Smithsonian, authors formulate the definitions of five areas of internal communication, the first one being regular departmental meetings to share information regarding ongoing projects, as well raising awareness about institutional goals and strategic plans. The second one is a clear procedure of welcoming new staff members, which involves a delivery of a set of materials about the OFMR and its functions within the museum in question. The third and the fourth is communication with museum leadership and stakeholders. The fifth requires constant benchmarking and data collection in order to analyse the work for further development. However, since its exploration of the topics listed above is not deep enough, it has to be accompanied with sources specifically focused on the aforementioned areas of FM.
Summary
Over the last half century, museum architecture has gained increasing attention from academic researchers, resulting in a number of ways to conceptualise museum buildings. These range from art history perspectives to social, cultural, and even philosophical analysis. Museum buildings have been discussed widely at various professional events, and since the number of renovation and construction projects continues to grow, it is assumed that more research on the topic will be conducted in the future.
172 Angela Person, The Care and Keeping of Cultural Facilities.
64 While this thesis and the variety of works that have shaped the author’s theoretical views and methodology use the term architecture rather widely, without limiting it to strictly physical features of a certain space, some books and articles on the topic take a more conservative approach. Examples include J. Physick’s Victoria and Albert Museum: The History of Its Building and Natalia Datieva’s research of the SHM. Even though their understanding of the material may disagree with the approach taken here, it is nevertheless important to acknowledge the amount of research they have done about their respective buildings, making it easier for future exploration. However, the in-depth analysis of Datieva’s texts that will be presented in the next chapters, reveals a political bias that was perpetuated in the works that followed hers. This raises the question whether a strictly historiographical approach without any particular theory informing it is able to be truly objective. This thesis, therefore, relies to a different extent on a variety of theories summarized below.
One of the basic divisions that can be found in the books of, for instance, Pevsner and Giebelhausen, is differentiating between a museum as a monument and a museum as an instrument, the first being a thing in itself, a finalized, limited space whose historical value makes change difficult, and the other used to denote a space that is flexible and focuses on the content rather than its own form. While discussing the same dichotomy, Michaela Giebelhausen describes it as a more of a spectrum with a blurred relationship between form and function, and this is the approach that will be taken in this thesis, as the history of the particular institution in question demonstrates how significantly this terminology depends on the observer’s point of view. The founders of the SHM possibly saw it as an instrument for conveying their understanding of history and Russia’s unique features, however, the design choices that they implemented left very little room for further change, leading to a quick fossilization of the building into a monument and an ensuing multi-decade collision between new ideas and requirements and the established spatial framework.
Museum architecture has also been studied by analysing parties involved in the production of space. The works presented in this chapter vary in their scope, from exploring only the position and work of the architect to the investigation of complex relationships between a number of people and institutions. Some researchers, such as Duncan Cameron, also emphasized the importance of communication between the
65 museum and the visitor, not only between the staff members. By looking at the communication and, more specifically, the decision-making process behind the creation of museum buildings, it may be possible to enhance our understanding of museum architecture and overcome certain limitations which are caused by the ‘monument- instrument’ dichotomy and other physical shape-centred theories. Such an approach was taken in the works of Crook, Whitehead, and MacLeod, who all narrowed down the scope of their research to one particular facility and its spatial features, thus making it possible to explore as many details as necessary. MacLeod’s work is possibly the most comprehensive of all three in terms of its theoretical foundation, as the institution in question, the Walker Art Gallery, is explored from different angles and in a variety of contexts.
A separate corpus of works analysed in this chapter is comprised of research conducted and published in the Russian language. These editions were necessary, both for understanding the professional context in which the SHM was developing, and for sharing these texts with a wider academic audience, as they are quite rarely quoted in English-language books and articles. The literature analysis is accompanied by a brief introduction into the history of Russian museums in order to describe the foundation upon which the aforementioned research was built. There is an obvious change that occurred after the Revolution, when the early Soviet policies, despite having an invigorating influence on the sector, introduced measures that limited initiative, such as making all museums fully Government funded. Further legislation, and the general political climate, made the ideological component of all exhibitions Government mandated and limited foreign contact, possibly rewarding and encouraging conformist attitudes both in museum staff and in researchers. Therefore, while early texts, published before the Revolution, may contain valuable information and guidelines, further works are predominantly quite homogenous and either relatively vague or focused on rather narrow subjects. Based on the sources analysed in this chapter, it appears that Russian researchers tend to focus on large-scale trends and their evolution, whereas European and American researchers value detail and predominantly explore case studies.
It appears that one of the most relevant tools for approaching the case study of this thesis is viewing museum buildings as manageable facilities, which can offer an insight
66 into the decision-making processes of the designing stages and the two renovations, but at the same time does not negate the value of academic conceptualization of these events similarly to what is described above. Some research findings of the theoretical works discussed in the chapter correlate with the practical advice presented in the facility management guidelines, such as the importance of communication and of thorough research. Moreover, some theoretical works on museum architecture, specifically, Crook’s 1972 The British Museum focuses on functionality, funding issues and the decision-making process without referring to the FM framework at all.
The FM approach was quite common in the American museum sector, since museum management has been developing there from the late 19th century, and this is where most of the sources on the topic come from. Despite a possible perception of practice- oriented sources as superficial, a wide array of their advice concerns appreciating an institution’s history and established practices and respect for collections. Authors that write about facility management often insist on the importance of self-awareness of a museum as an institution achieved by formulating a clear mission and researching its origins, as well as creating a strong team of professionals that would be focused on realizing the organisation’s goals. Even in works focused exclusively on buildings and even specific elements within those buildings, such as microclimate, the importance of the human factor and thorough research is consistently underlined. The only Russian book on the subject, How to Establish Local Museums by N. Romanov, was published in the early 20th century. Its content was very similar to the American sources of its time and even the future ones; however, possibly because it came out in 1919, the historic circumstances may have had an adverse effect on its professional usage prospects.
Although it is not justified to talk about the events of the past using the language of modern managers, it is possible to draw comparisons between the most recent occurrences, in which local specialists could have had access to these sources. As for the designing stages of the SHM, whereas it is not possible to assess the managerial efficiency of the founders, as it was before the term management was even applied to museums, it could be acceptable to use their experiences to discuss the validity of modern views.
67 Applying FM concepts to anachronic material requires sensitivity towards the contexts in which the events in question took place, including the political climate, the state of the economy, and the role of museums in a particular society. The importance of some contexts may increase at different times; in the particular case of the SHM it was the political intrusion into all spheres of life, including culture and museums, in the early Soviet years. The author that similarly promoted the value of context was A.D. King, whose concept of built environment – architecture produced by a certain society – is the cornerstone of this research. Another important contribution to the role of context was the work of C. Yanni, who explored the role of scientific knowledge in shaping the spaces of natural history museums. In this thesis, I will be looking at the role of the Russian style in architecture, however, the detailed analysis of the architectural concepts behind the SHM project is beyond the scope of the research.
In summary, in the present research, museum architecture is understood as part of the built environment and as a socio-cultural phenomenon, which is produced by a particular society in a particular moment in time, then constantly changed by various parties. The events which led to the formation of the SHM and its further spatial transformations are viewed through the lens of facility management, however, in order to avoid modern bias, it is done with a sensitivity towards multiple historic contexts.
68 Chapter 3
Methodology
This chapter focuses on describing and theorising the research methodology. It offers an explanation into the reasons why a microhistory of a single institution was deemed to be the most suitable approach for the research goals, and provides more detail as to why the State Historical Museum and its spatial transformations were chosen as the case study. In addition, a variety of primary and secondary sources, as well as the analytical approach taken to them, are described in detail, focusing on those items that have had the most significant effect to the development of observations and arguments presented in this thesis.
Critical Microhistory The fact that the museum chosen as a case study for the present research is one dedicated to national history presented a double challenge from a methodological standpoint. Firstly, a framework was required for approaching its institutional history, but its subject matter, and the way architecture was entangled with it, required an understanding of historical concepts to explore how the founders and the staff approached their material. In order to develop my understanding of institutional history, I analysed a number of sources on historiography of museum architecture discussed in the previous chapter. One insight gained from exploring these texts is that there are a number of ways of approaching museum buildings, ranging from high level analyses of building, to micro historical research into particular spatial changes in one museum.173 While some of these approaches, such as building a chronological narrative of the evolution of the museum as a building type across time and space,174 or discussions on the differences between a monument and an instrument view of museum architecture,175 have been used by Russian researchers,176 a detailed single case study approach, as that taken here, is quite rare. Applying it, therefore, seemed potentially useful in terms of producing a new view on a partially-explored subject.
173 Pevsner, MacLeod. 174 Nikolaus Pevsner, A History of Building Types 175 “The Architecture of the Museum: Symbolic Structures, Urban Contexts” ed. by M. Giebelhausen 176 Vladimir Ivanovich Revjakin. Hudozhestvennye muzei: Sprav. posobie [Art Museums: Reference manual] (Moscow: Strojizdat, 1991)
69 Before moving on to discuss the advantages and limitations of different ways of looking at the architectural history of museums, it is necessary to focus on the understanding of that history. Here, I have found the works of Keith Jenkins and Carlo Ginzburg to be particularly helpful. Jenkins insists on differentiating history from the past. The past is understood as events and situations that occurred in different moments of time, while history is viewed as a discourse based on a set of texts and narratives presenting various perspectives of the past, which means that history does not equal the past.177
Following Jenkins’ approach, it can be assumed that each historian’s perspective and, therefore, work is biased to a certain extent by personal interest, previous experiences, a specific ideological context, or a multitude of other factors.178 We can only see the past from our own perspective. This position has had a two-pronged effect on this thesis. Firstly, it has made me aware of my own possible bias and I have been closely observing each element where it may have resurfaced in order to identify and eliminate it whenever it was feasible. Primarily this had to do with perceptions of certain historical periods, for instance, Stalin’s era as solely negative and oppressive, and the position of a modern cosmopolitan educated museum professional looking back at the experiences of those who did not have my level of access or potentially even interest in doing their work a certain way. That said, my work is quite possibly still biased, or, more accurately, reflective of my own time and place.
Jenkins’ view is also helpful here, driving the researcher to clearly identify their own agendas and acknowledge the questions asked of the past and the contemporary context out of which they come. As an aspiring young museum professional who has studied abroad and is ambitious for museum development in Russia, I became increasingly aware that my agenda was to understand more about the past of the SHM as a route to influencing contemporary practice, to see the SHM and other institutions engage with relatively recent literatures around facility management with a view to developing a more sophisticated approach to museum architecture.
The other outcome that Jenkins’ view of history as an area constructed by individuals has had on this thesis is the critical approach it necessitates to existing research on the life of
177 Keith Jenkins, Re-thinking History (Routledge, 2003), p. 7. 178 Ibid., p. 8.
70 the SHM. While exploring the texts of my predecessors, I focused on the facts, rather than opinions, cross-referencing the facts to archival data as well. As a result, I was able to trace back the formation of institutional myths perpetuated until the present day, to the 1980s research quoted in multiple brochures and other later editions.
In order to challenge a particular way of thinking about museum buildings in Russia, which views museum buildings as a product of an architect of a piece of art,179 I decided to choose the micro historical research method, since it opens up new perspectives on how museum architecture can be perceived, at the same time as revealing a close analysis of the organisation. My aim was partly to provoke discussion on the role of those parties involved in producing museum architecture, which are usually misrepresented in the existing Russian texts, such as members of founding committees, as well as to re-assess the involvement of those parties, mainly architects, who usually receive scrupulous attention from scholars, in order to stimulate further discussion on their role in the process.
Microhistory has developed as a research method since the 1970s, when the very first works were published by Italian academics, among them Giovanni Levi, Simona Cerutti, and Carlo Ginzburg. These researchers studied particular places or people by conducting detailed investigations of primary sources, while remaining sensitive to large-scale contexts, such as societies and countries. Their detailed analysis of small towns or previously unknown people was aimed at overcoming generalization, and in some cases the existing interpretations of historical narratives. Thus, for instance, Carlo Ginzburg explored the Italian Inquisition by examining the life and beliefs of a miller, Menocchio, who was sentenced to death because of his supposedly heretical theological interpretations.180 Similarly, Ginzburg’s French colleague, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, studied the lives and beliefs of medieval peasants through examining the documents related to one particular village, Montaillou.181 These scholars illustrated that you could build a detailed analysis of specific objects of study in order to generate new insights and understanding.
179Kirichenko, Datieva, Surikova. 180 Sigurður Gylfi Magnússon and István M. Szijártó. What is Microhistory? pp. 1-4; Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth Century Miller (Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, repr. 1992) 181 Sigurður Gylfi Magnússon and István M. Szijártó, pp. 29-30
71 Similarly to the aforementioned works, this thesis does not focus exclusively on the development of the museum as a thing in itself. It aims to uncover the changes in the perception and treatment of one museum building in various historical contexts, the development of museum work in Russia as a practical area and an academic subject, and the specifics of managerial practices within the Russian museum sector. Each event and opinion is examined both as a separate item and as a part of wider reality, from the museum itself as an environment, to the particular area of Moscow, to the city as a whole, and to the country in a particular era.
It should be noted, however, that even though the case study for the present research is a museum of national history, the field of national identity in museums, in the form in which it is explored, for instance, in the works of Simon Knell, Peter Aronsson, Gabriella Elgenius,182 won't be examined in detail, since this is beyond the remit of the thesis. Although historical and political context are used to situate the microhisrotical analysis, how this is represented in the museum exhibitions is not the focus of the thesis.
A Microhistory of a Particular Case This thesis is built around the SHM and its spatial evolution as a case study. As argued by Robert K. Yin, case study research methodology is used when the researcher aims to focus on particular events, places and people in order to provide an in-depth view of them, thus gaining a larger understanding.183 It is rather similar to other research methods, such as, for instance, experiments, economic modelling, surveys, and ethnographies in the way that each requires clear articulation of research questions, careful choice of data analysis strategies, and data implementation of collection protocols and instruments. What is different for case studies is the fact that they require an additional skill, which is performing data collection and data analysis simultaneously. This makes it possible to effectively navigate the situations when pieces of data, such as archival items and those gathered through interviews, contradict each other, leading to the need to double-check and carry out additional research. Yin describes case study research as a three-step process,
182 Simon J Knell, Peter Aronsson, Arne Bugge Amundsen, National Museums, (London: Routledge, 2010); Peter Aronsson; Gabriella Elgenius, Building national museums in Europe 1750-2010 : conference proceedings from EuNaMus, European National Museums: Identity Politics, the Uses of the Past and the European Citizen, Bologna 28-30 April 2011, (Linköping: Linköping University, 2011). 183 Robert K. Yin, Case Study Methods, 3rd edition of Complementary Methods for Research in Education, (American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, 2014), pp. 3-4
72 which involves making the choice and justifying it, including the number of items under investigation, and defining the type and limits of the theoretical background.184
The reason for choosing the SHM as a case study was its uniquely convenient set of features for researching museum architecture. Firstly, it was one of the very few museums in Russia of that time that was provided with a building designed specifically to host this organisation and its collections, making it possible to uncover the perceptions of such an organisation’s needs, as well as explore the earliest developments in Russian museum architecture. Secondly, its journey through three major periods of Russian history, from an empire to a socialist state to a modern democracy, accompanied by the potential of using its exhibitions to promote ideology and its proximity to the Kremlin, created a complicated power dynamic. All of this serves as a worthwhile basis for exploring which party - the government, the city as an urban environment, or the museum and its staff - had more effect on the particular decisions made at the SHM at a certain period.
It is also important that the museum archive contains a large number of documents on institutional history. Even though not all of the events and decisions behind them are well-documented, there is still an opportunity for an in-depth exploration of the spatial transformations at the SHM, beginning with the earliest stages of its conception.
From an analysis of the seminal works in microhistory it can be seen that the choice of a small-scale case study is not the only method of narrowing down the scope of the research, as it can be accompanied by focusing deeper on, or even isolating, the particular periods of an institution’s, place’s or person’s existence. Carlo Ginzburg does so with his exploration of Menocchio’s biography, focusing primarily on the details and the duration of his Inquisition trials. The same can be observed in the work of Le Roy Ladurie, the scope of whose exploration of the Occitan village is limited to 30 years,185 despite the remoteness of the period in question and the ensuing difficulties in employing such a precise approach.
184 Ibid. 185 Sigurður Gylfi Magnússon and István M. Szijártó, pp. 29-30.
73 Similarly, the scope of the present research has been narrowed down to particular periods as well, the main criterion being the significance of spatial transformations occurring at the time. The logic for this is twofold: first, a close focus on specific periods of time opens up the possibility of delving more deeply into the microhistory of the SHM; and secondly, significant spatial changes undoubtedly signal some significant level of institutional change worthy of study. In the present research, it is argued that the values and policies of the museum are, at various moments, embodied in its architecture. By analysing the microhistory of the building and working hard to humanise that – to consider decision-making processes and the contexts within which those decisions were possible – we can learn something meaningful about the past of the institution and the current dilemmas it faces. More than this, we might seek to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past and work instead from a position of greater knowledge and understanding. Microhistory, then, becomes a route to this, but it is a microhistory which understands the architecture of the museum as firmly embedded in time and place and inextricably linked to the museum as institution.
After a thorough examination of the 142 years during which the SHM has been open to the public, and the several decades prior to its opening, three periods were chosen to be analysed in greater detail. These periods are the primary subjects of the research.
The first period is the 1870s to 1883, when the idea of the museum was conceived and developed, resulting in the construction of the building and the opening of the first 11 halls out of approximately 40. Compared to the later periods, this particular moment in the SHM’s history is rather well-documented and some previous analysis on it has been done by other researchers, such as Avram Razgon and Elena Kirichenko. However, it was still possible to establish previously undiscussed facts and draw different conclusions by taking a new approach to the same data. For instance, by looking at the museum not just as a building, but as an institution and a manageable facility, especially by comparing it to its contemporary, the Polytechnic, I was able to uncover the origins of several administrative patterns that would later repeat at different stages of the museum’s existence and spatial transformations.
The second period I focus on is the late 1930s when the first major transformation occurred, involving design choices that are traditionally interpreted as ideologically-
74 driven and ethically questionable. However, by exploring the specifics of the actual changes, and the reaction to those changes by contemporary professionals, it was possible to establish that this view of them as government-sanctioned vandalism was formulated in the 1980s without sufficient grounds and analysis, and has since then been perpetuated by the media and in academic literature. Avoiding the modern bias was the main challenge while exploring this period, but it was also the most rewarding choice, as it made the events of the time and the connections between them clearer.
The third moment in the SHM’s history which was considered worthy of deep analysis was the period between the early 1970s and 1997, when a major renovation that started out as a maintenance issue turned into a project to reconstruct the Museum as originally built in 1875-1883. Exploring these events demonstrated the often-repetitive nature of the institution’s history. This was the most challenging period of the Museum’s history to research, due to lack of documentation and the sensitivity of the material. These factors meant that documentation was scarce and interviews were, at times, limited. However, despite these challenges, it was possible to piece together seven interviews.
At the earliest stages of the data gathering process, and as suggested in the comments above, it became clear that there is an established narrative of the events of the SHM formation and further development, which can, to a certain extent, contradict some of the pieces of information found at the archive and in other sources. An example of such a contradiction would be referring to the events of a certain period as positive or negative based exclusively on the ideology of that period, not on the analysis of the events themselves. Another illustration of institutional myth is placing responsibility for certain questionable acts, such as whitening the ceiling portraits in one of the halls, on museum staff without documented proof.186
One of the ways chosen to avoid reinforcing the same institutional bias was focusing on the professional qualities of the parties involved in the spatial transformations and on the decision-making process itself. The situation also required a certain approach to history that would be helpful for a thorough, detail-oriented investigation of the events in question, a way to overcome the official voice and provide a multi-voiced
186 Datieva, N.S., Istoricheskaja zapiska.
75 perspective. Microhistory can offer this highly specific, albeit contextualized, investigation of a specific well-defined case study.
In order to conduct the research, I concentrated mainly on contextual analysis, although in places comparative and visual methods of analysis were also utilised.
Comparative Analysis Chapter 4 contains an additional case study, the Polytechnic Museum, which had been established in conditions comparable to those of the SHM. The formation of both organisations was closely connected with the Polytechnic Exhibition; both founder committees had decided to build special facilities and chose central locations in Moscow, and both at some point required governmental involvement of different types and proportions. Chapters 5 and 6 explore the institutional changes, comparing the different stages of the SHM development to each other, with sensitivity towards the dissimilarity of contexts in which they occurred.
Contextual Analysis The contextual analysis was performed by using a framework suggested by Anthony King. One of the main ideas that is crucial for this thesis is viewing architecture in general, and museum architecture in particular, as a part of the built environment, which is created by a particular society at a specific moment in time. Architecture is recognised as a social and cultural product. The main focus of the research conducted by King in the late 1970s, in India, was uncovering why the buildings in Delhi had particular physical and spatial characteristics. While exploring the historical development of the city, King was not only interested in analysing the physical characteristics of the forms, but also in the society that produced them. In the following years after completing his research, King published a collection of essays written by architects, sociologists, and anthropologists, entitled Buildings and Society, where he emphasized the need for an approach or method for understanding the built environment. Even though by the 1980s a number of works on sociology of architecture had already appeared, King expressed a concern that too often “decisions whether to examine particular items in the environment are based on narrow criteria”, which resulted in the profusion of works about ‘great architects’ and certain building types.
76 King demonstrated a gap between architectural history, which usually deals with prominent architects and their ‘oeuvres’, and the sociology of architecture, which focuses on certain buildings and people involved in producing and using them. Since King conceives all as a built form, he argues that there is a need to explore all possible built forms as well as cultural and historical contexts in which they were and are produced.
One of the questions King was looking for an answer to is why buildings serving the same function have different forms in different societies. Thus, one of his aims was to create a method for researching the built environment “through time and between different cultures”.187 By studying the variety of built forms, not only famous buildings, but also some “small, obscure, and, as a proportion of the total built environment, numerically insignificant”,188 King developed a framework for understanding the built environment, and thus – society.
The framework includes an analysis of the following elements: the function of the building and its original form; the factors and circumstances (social ones are studied independently) that cause changes in the existing building types or lead to the introduction of new ones; and, finally, social changes brought about by architecture. This thesis therefore explores the particular contexts within which the spatial changes were undertaken at the SHM. For example, the condition of the economy and the amount and structure of available funding. The SHM is also viewed through the prism of its contemporary state of museology as an academic and professional area. Another crucial factor taken into account is the urban environment. In the events that led to the establishment of the SHM, urban environment functioned as a basis for some the choices made at the designing stage. In the later years when the building took its place in the Moscow cityscape, a mutually-affecting dynamic was created between the SHM and its surroundings, both the immediate one and the city as a whole.
In my research, one of the most influential contexts explored is the political system in which the SHM was operating at different periods of its history. It seems to have had
187 Buildings and Society: Essays on the Social Development of the Built Environment, ed. by A. King (London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980), p. 9. 188 Ibid., p. 193.
77 the most significant effect, since the SHM itself has been always politicised. It is especially noticeable in how the spatial transformations are viewed as political in academic literature, whereas the professional and managerial aspects of the decisions made are often ignored. The contextual approach then, could also be expanded to include the context of the museum as institution and as a part of the urban environment.
Visual Analysis The visual method was originally meant to be applied to images of the museum interiors, however, due to a lack of regular photographs of the same locations within the SHM, these images are referenced only in a few parts of the thesis. The exteriors, however, and the overall urban context in which the SHM evolved, especially during the Soviet years, were photographed almost annually; first of all, because of the military parades and other political events, and, secondly, because the Red Square was, and still is, one of the main tourist attractions in Moscow for both Russian and foreign visitors. Some of the aforementioned images are in the public domain. There is also a four-part documentary dedicated to the history of parades on the Red Square, with the help of which it is possible to see how the SHM building was decorated during these events.189 By analysing the images taken during the parades, it is possible to observe that the role of the building was purely decorative and the decorations made no reference to the specific features or functions of the institution. Detailed analysis of these photographs and videos will be provided in Chapters 4, 5 and 6, however, the images themselves are not available in the present thesis. The list of images is located in Bibliography section. The names are given in Russian so that the SHM administration can be contacted in order to obtain access to them.
Overview of Sources
The research is, in the main, based on primary sources; an investigation of archival data that encompasses both the personal files of those involved in the formation and development of the SHM, and a variety of administrative documents, such as reports
189 D/f «Istorija voennyh paradov na Krasnoj ploshhadi». Fil'm pervyj [History of the Military Parades on the Red square, Documentary, Parts 1-4], online video recording, Youtube, 6 May 2013,
78 and minutes of meetings. Some of the other primary sources analysed include articles in newspapers and professional journals on the events at the SHM, as well as legislative documents that had an effect on the cultural sector, including museums.
I also undertook a number of interviews with the members of the SHM museum staff, some of whom continue to work at the Museum and some of whom have retired. It was expected that the interviews would provide additional contexts, connectivity, facts, and interpretation to support the fragmented data found in archival documents. However, this effect was limited due to the recency of some events in question and the interviewees’ sometimes reluctance to discuss sensitive matters. The specific reasons for this are discussed in Chapter 6, where a wider context that makes it easier to understand this reluctance, is presented.
Archival Research
Since most of the archival sources are in Russian, the appropriate methods of data retrieval are the ones designed and standardised for Russian researchers. These methods are based on the Federal State Educational Standard № 030600 (History), and each of them describes a way of examining particular groups of documents.
Among the document types in the Standard190 are three that are relevant for the present research. Institutional documents, belonging to one institution, are characterized as a systematic interconnected group. The connections can be discovered through links from one document to another. Thus, these documents should be studied as a group in order to present a comprehensive story. In order to examine personal documents, such as diaries, notes, and letters, it is necessary to investigate the context in which they were created, and also to pay attention to style in order to uncover the relationships between correspondents. The advice regarding periodical press concerns paying attention to the
190 Andrej Golikov and Tat'jana Kruglova, Metodika raboty s istoricheskimi istochnikami [Methods for working with primary sources: study guide for students] (Moscow: Academia, 2014)
79 sources, and to the owners or sponsors of the medium in order to assess the potential bias.
The particular archival facilities that host documents pertinent to this research, as well as their data storage policies and the types of documents in question, are discussed below.
Primary Sources
The primary written sources are located in several institutions, including the SHM itself, the Russian State Historical Archive, the library of the Polytechnic Museum, the National Library of Russia, and the Russian State library. A significant number of primary sources within the SHM can be found in two departments. The first one is the Department of Written Sources which, among other collections, contains personal documents of the Museum’s founders. Within the Department of Written Sources there is a departmental archive which hosts paperwork from most of the museum’s departments, including those items that contain data on the construction and renovations explored in this thesis. The second is the Department of Pictorial Materials, which stores images, photographs, and architectural sketches. Most of the documents which contain information regarding the spatial transformations of the SHM were analysed by Natalia Datieva, the then head of the architectural research group, to provide the basis for the renovation in the 1980s. The list of these documents, which is available at the departmental archive, is the main tool for identifying those items that are valuable for the present research.
The earliest stages of the Museum’s existence are rather poorly documented, possibly a result of the founders not seeing the value of proper bookkeeping and documentation. It is also possible that it was due to a lack of established tradition of recording and filing, as well as little governmental control and bureaucracy, especially compared to the later Soviet period. Therefore, most of the necessary information on the conception and development of the museum, including the construction, can be primarily found in the personal files of the founders and other parties involved.
80 The first SHM director, Alexey Uvarov, left behind many letters and notes, covering the period between the 1870s until his death in 1884, which have been enormously useful for this research.191 Based on these, Uvarov produces an impression of a highly organized and efficient administrator. His correspondence contains discussions on the Museum’s mission and information about the construction works and interior decoration. The Department of Written Sources also contains the diary, notes and letters of the second museum director, Ivan Zabelin.192 These shed light on internal conflicts within the planning committee, especially ones involving the head architect. Compared to Uvarov, Zabelin was more interested in the creative, rather than the administrative, therefore, his files also contain an in-depth discussion about the Russian style in architecture. Interestingly, they can also serve as an explanation for the Museum’s rather incoherent acquisition policy. The notes and letters of Nikolay Sherbatov, the third director, demonstrate that he faced a number of financial issues during his term in office.193 The information regarding management and financial problems provided by his correspondence correlates strongly with the data from the annual reports. It was under his management that it became clear that the museum required additional spaces and some changes in the layout, despite the fact that the main building was still partly unfinished.
These collections of documents, combined with the published and photocopied personal correspondence of the project architect, Vladimir Osipovich Sherwood, offer insight into some of the events that took place during the design and construction stages of the SHM. It should be added that some of Sherwood’s personal files are stored outside the SHM, in the private Sherwood family archive and at the Russian State Library. The Sherwood-composed items that were used for this research are quite varied and include sources beyond personal correspondence and other files. Sherwood’s diary is possibly one of the most important sources. Written before the 1870s, it is helpful for understanding Sherwood’s personality, his family background and the origins of his passion for Orthodoxy, as well as the wide variety of interests which shaped his approach to the SHM project.194 The analysis of the design project itself is primarily based on Sherwood’s cover letter for his designs, submitted as part of the architectural
191 Moscow, State Historical Museum (SHM), Department of Written Sources, fol. 17 192 SHM, Dept.Written Sources, folder 440 193 SHM, Dept.Written Sources, folder 270 194 Vladimir Shervud, Vospominaniya [Memories], Unpublished copy stored in a private archive.
81 contest195, and the brochure that was published after he left the project, where he shared his vision of the museum.196 Sherwood’s understanding of architecture and its role within society, as well as his interpretation of the Russian style is explored through his book Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, and Ornamental Patterns197 and various brief notes and sketches, all of which were utilized in this research.
The Soviet and modern periods of the Museum’s functioning are, to a certain extent, better documented, possibly because of the Soviet government introducing mandatory standardization of the field from the earliest years of its existence. Therefore, personal files play a lesser role in the exploration of these periods in the Museum’s history, however, there are still some that are relevant. For the first renovation of the SHM in the 1930s these are the head architect’s, Andrey Burov, travel notes and diaries,198 and for the second renovation it is a memoir of Konstantin Levykin, the SHM director.199 All of Burov’s legacy is stored outside the SHM, primarily at the Schusev Museum of Architecture in Moscow. These files include his travel notes and diaries, letters, articles and drafts, as well as sketches, documentaries, and photographs. Some of these documents were compiled in 1980 in order to produce a book, which was used in the course of working on this thesis. As the book contains Burov’s original materials, without additional interpretations, it is treated as a primary source.
In the course of the present research, the most valuable data was found in the travel diary which Burov wrote during his PhD course trip. This trip took him on a tour of Italy, France, Greece, Egypt, Palestine, and Turkey, which provided him with an opportunity to investigate the most prominent architectural landmarks of these territories, such as the Colosseum, the Acropolis, and Pompeii. An analysis of the way Burov described works of architecture he saw during the trip makes it possible to
195 SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, fol. 17 196 Vladimir Shervud, Neskol'ko slov po povodu Istoricheskogo muzeja Ego Imperatorskogo Vysochestva Gosudarja Naslednika Cesarevicha [A Few Words about the Historical Museum of his Imperial Highness the Sovereign Heir Tsarevich] (Moscow: Rodzevich Publishing House, 1879) 197 Vladimir Osipovich Shervud, Zhivopis', skul'ptura, arhitektura i ornamentika : Opyt issled. zakonov iskusstva [Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, and Ornamental Patterns: Research results] (Moscow: Univ. tip., 1895) 198 Burov, A.K., Andrej Konstantinovich Burov: Pis'ma. Dnevniki. Besedy s aspirantami. Suzhdenija sovremennikov [Andrei Konstantinovich Boers: Letters. Diaries. Interview with the graduate students. Сomments by his contemporaries] (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1980) 199 Konstantin Grigor'evich Levykin. O zhizni muzeja v jepohu peremen: vospominanija shestnadcatogo direktora Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo muzeja [On the function of the Museum in changing times ...: memories of the sixteenth Director of the State Historical Museum] (Moscow: Gos. ist. muzej, 2000).
82 conclude that his concept of architecture was that it was a product created by a particular society in a particular period of time.200 He was also interested in materials and techniques and how they were used to shape a particular space and create an atmosphere.201 The trip took place several months before Burov was invited to join the SHM renovation, and since the administrative files only documented the changes implemented, the diary serves as a source explaining the decision-making process behind some of the design choices.
Levykin’s memoir is also treated as a primary source, but the text interpreted in the thesis is the one published by the SHM in 2000. The memoir provides the research with descriptions of the decision-making process behind the events that occurred in the late 1970s and the 1980s. In the memoir, he disclosed the events and the names of several parties involved in the life of the Museum and the renovation, including those that did not appear in any official paperwork. Levykin was also visibly concerned about the Museum and shared not only factual information, but a living person’s perception of it.
The majority of files officially documenting the functioning of the SHM as an organisation are stored at the Departmental Archive. These include reports and minutes of meetings from the 1870s,202 approximately 100 annual reports that covering the period between the 1880s until the early 1990s,203 and the reports from exhibition, administrative, and general service departments,204 as well as SHM guidebooks.205
In order to organise the archival research process, the following framework has been established.206 The structure of the departmental archive was analysed in order to understand the exact location of the documents, resulting in the following finding: the archive is organized in a chronological way, and for each of the years there is a similar storage method, which in a particular order holds documents from some of the museum
200 Burov, A.K. Andrej Konstantinovich Burov, p. 46. 201 Ibid., pp. 47-48. 202 SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, folders 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 17, 18, 19. 203 SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, folders 29, 32, 38, 40, 45, 47, 48, 52, 60, 64, 67, 70, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 87, 89, 93, 94, 98, 101, 106, 113, 120, 125, 128, 133, 165, 200, and others 204 SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, folders 245, 640 205 SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, folder 23 206 The current method is proposed by Michael R. Hill in his book Archival strategies and techniques (1993).
83 departments that existed at the moment in question. The other departments either had not submitted their documentation or had destroyed it.
Since the research is partially driven by facility management approaches and priorities, I was looking for particular kinds of documents which would shed light on the goals behind the decision-making process, such as a mission statement, and those that could describe the actual steps taken to fulfil those goals, for instance, minutes of meetings and annual plans and reports.
Additional information on the subject was available at the Russian State Historical Archive where the correspondence between the SHM staff, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Public Education is stored.207 Numerous letters and notes provide the research with an understanding of the funding system of the SHM and demonstrate that it was relatively poor budgeting and reporting that resulted in lack of governmental support. Extracts from the correspondence were cross-referenced against the data gathered at the SHM departmental archive, so that the missing pieces of information about the funding and negotiations with the ministries could be definitively included in the research.
Chapter 4 offers a comparative analysis of spatial management of the SHM and another Moscow museum established at the same and in the same contexts - the Polytechnic. The planning committee of the Polytechnic Museum faced the same administrative, budgetary, and spatial issues, and seems to have dealt with them in a more organised way. The data was collected from the forty-five annual reports covering the period between 1872-1917, which are stored at the Polytechnic Museum library.208
In the pre-Revolution years, the museum sector and cultural life in general were hardly regulated by the government, but starting from the early Soviet years, a significant
207 Moscow, Russian State Historical Archive (RSHA): fol. 565, inventory 4, file 15031; fol. 733, inventory 145, file 282; fol. 1152, inventory 10, file 210. 208 For instance, Moskovskij muzej prikladnyh znanij. Materialy, kasajushhiesja ustrojstva muzeja, rechi, proiznesennye pri ego otkrytii 30-go nojabrja 1872 goda, otchet vysochajshe uchrezhdennogo komiteta muzeja za pervyj god ego sushhestvovanija po 30 nojabrja 1873 goda [Moscow museum of applied knowledge. Materials related to the organisation of the Museum, speeches delivered during its inauguration on November 30th, 1872, ...], Izvestija imperatorskogo obshhestva ljubitelej estestvoznanija, antropologii i jetnografii, vol. 15 (Moscow: Tipografija Gracheva i K. u Prechistenskih vorot, dom Shilovoj, 1874).
84 number of laws began to appear in the field. The texts of these legislative documents serve as primary sources for Chapters 5 and 6 in order to explain the political and economic contexts in which the SHM operated. These laws formulated the framework within which museums would function for the next century, including the administrative channels and the funding system. The discussion on the monument preservation initiatives and laws is crucial for the chapter on the 1986-1997 renovation, as the protected status of the SHM put major limitations on what could be achieved during the renovation.
The last group of primary sources to be discussed here are a variety of articles published in newspapers and professional magazines during the periods in question. After exploring the institution’s documents and the personal files of those involved, there is hardly new factual information in the media sources, however, the articles analysed for this thesis offered an insight into how the events in question were perceived. This type of primary source required careful treatment, as most of the texts available demonstrated the presence of some type of bias. For instance, most newspapers of the 1990s, while commenting on the struggle of the Museum to finish its renovation, routinely portrayed all the other parties involved as villainous, and museum staff as heroes. Only one newspaper remained objective while writing about the 1990s legal battle between the Museum and its subcontractor, and only one article supported the construction company’s position, whose claim was later upheld in a court of law.
There was also an opportunity to explore visual materials: the original architectural drawings produced by Sherwood, which are kept at the Department of Pictorial Sources at the SHM, and a number of photographs stored at the departmental archive.
Secondary sources
The thesis draws on multiple secondary sources. Those that contributed to the formation of the theoretical framework and shaped my understanding of microhistory are discussed above, however, there are many more varied items that are presented in detail in this section. Some have provided the research with a general understanding of the political and economic contexts in which the museum existed throughout its history; while some outlined the specific features of Moscow and the Red Square as built
85 environments and formulated conceptions of Russian museum architecture, including the Russian Revival style that is at the core of the SHM. The majority of published sources on Russian and Soviet museology were also analysed to uncover the attitudes towards professional communities, competence, and museum architecture. These, and other sources, have been classified into the following categories and are presented below.
The first group of texts written by such authors as Kurukin, Pavlenko, Ljashenko, Tvardovskaja, provided the research with a modern reliable understanding of Russian history of the last three centuries. They helped to identify the main events and trends that could have had an effect on the life of the museum and, therefore, prompted a more thorough investigation of primary sources that concerned these particular topics and periods of time. However, attempts were made to analyse the events at the SHM regardless of the established understanding of historical context, as well in order to avoid bias, but this approach did not reveal any major contradictions, as opposed to some of the sources discussed below.
The second group includes texts written specifically on the history of the SHM and its building. Despite the fact that there is no comprehensive source on SHM history that would cover its entire span, there does appear to be an established institutional narrative, most likely formulated during the second half of the 20th century, the traces of which can be found in academic texts, as well as in guide books and the media. The core of the institutional perception is the idea of the SHM’s significance for Russian society, and special attention is paid to its location on the Red Square, and to the building itself, which is viewed as a prominent architectural monument of its time.
The earliest attempts to write SHM history can be found in the first two decades of the 20th century, when Nikolay Scherbatov, the then director, and Georgy Malitzkiy, a member of staff, compiled notes on the events that took place before the Revolution. Sherbatov’s text was aimed at convincing the members of the City Duma to donate their building, since the SHM required extra space.209 The history was told through the facts
209 29 janvarja 1914 goda. Obrashhenie Shherbatova k gospodinu Ispravljajushhemu dolzhnost' moskovskogo gorodskogo golovy [January 29, 1914. Scherbatov’s address to the acting Moscow Mayor], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, fond 270, Inventory 2, item 9.
86 that would support the Museum’s role and its importance within th society. Malitzky, being a researcher rather than an administrator, documented the events in a rather neutral manner.210
Further steps in studying the Museum’s history were made by Anna Zaks, a member of the exhibition department, and Avram Razgon, a researcher at the museological institute and later the head of the SHM Department of Cartography. Zaks wrote multiple articles, and Razgon was working on a monograph dedicated to the SHM’s history from the formative years until the 1980s.211 While Zaks was mainly focused on the history of exhibition work between 1917 and the early 1960s,212 Razgon paid attention to the organisational structure and funding issues, carefully documenting events which occurred from the early 1870s until the Revolution. Unfortunately, Razgon passed away in 1989, leaving the draft of his unfinished monograph, which was not published, but is now available in the Museum’s archive. Razgon’s text, as well as those written by his predecessor, Malitzky, helped to locate and identify some of the primary documents stored outside the SHM that were crucial for understanding the Museum’s relationship with the pre-Revolution governments. Razgon’s research is also quite remarkable for its time because it was focused, albeit to a lesser extent than this thesis, on the managerial aspect of the Museum’s life, despite being written in a political system that did not value personal input and administrative work.
Another source on SHM history, focused on architecture and interior design, was written by Natalia Datieva, who was placed in charge of researching the building’s history in the course of preparations for the last renovation. The book213 is an edited version of several texts based on the findings of Datieva’s research.214 The book, and the original unpublished texts available at the SHM archive, provided the thesis with the
210 Malickij G.A. Rossijskij istoricheskij muzej v nastojashhem i proshlom [Maliczkij G.A. The present and the past of the Russian historical Museum], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, fond 416, item 8а, folios 1- 29 211 Avram Moiseevich Razgon, Plan-prospekt monografii po istorii GIM [Outline plan for a monograph on the history of SHM], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, Academic secretariat Vol. 2, file 449. 212 Anna Borisovna Zaks, ‘Iz istorii Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo muzeja (1917-1941 gg.)’ [On the SHM history (1917-1941 gg.)] Ocherki istorii muzejnogo dela v Rossii, Vol 2 (Moscow: NII muzeevedenija, 1960), pp. 300-379 213 Natal'ja Datieva, Istoricheskij muzej. Arhitektura. Inter'ery [Historical Museum. Architecture. Interiors] (Moscow: Izdanie Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeja, 2015) 214 N.S. Datieva, Istoricheskaja zapiska [Historical note], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive (November 1989).
87 data on spatial transformations of museum space, including the formation years, and with explanations for some of the changes made during the last renovation. It is also possible that Datieva’s work contributed to the establishment of the institutional narrative, which glorifies the original design of the building, and therefore, it is worthwhile to compare her texts and the archival data in order to uncover possible bias.
The third group of works are those dedicated to Moscow, its history and urban environment of the 19th century. Among them are popular tourist guidebooks,215 a monograph on the history of the Russian coronation,216 and a book on the history of the Red Square parades.217 These books provided the research with factual information about particular buildings that were connected with the SHM in one way or another: because of physical proximity, legal issues, or symbolism, such as the GUM218 or various structures within the Kremlin. These sources also helped to conceptualize particular social and cultural contexts that were characteristic of Moscow at certain periods of time.
The fourth group contains materials regarding architecture, with a special focus on the Russian style,219 the history of Soviet architecture,220 and museum architecture. As a large body of work on museum architecture was exhaustively discussed in the literature review, emphasis is placed here on a broader, though no less important literature. The Russian Style, and the SHM architect Vladimir Sherwood’s version of it, were explored through the works of Elena Kirichenko and Evgeny Lykianov. Kirichenko is a historian specializing in architecture, who performed an in-depth analysis of Sherwood’s concepts. Evgeny Lykianov is a SHM member of staff, who studied Sherwood’s biography and his involvement in the SHM construction. Lykianov also visited Blackburn, a town near Manchester where Sherwood spent several years before
215 For instance, Romanskij, Nikolaj Alekseevich, Kratkij tolkovyj putevoditel' po Moskve [Short explanatory Guide] (Moscow: Gavrilov, 1898). 216 Inessa Nikolaevna Sljun'kova, Proekty oformlenija koronacionnyh torzhestv v Rossii XIX veka [Design projects of Coronation ceremonies in XIXth century Russia] (Moscow: BuksMArt, 2013) 217 Voennye parady na Krasnoj ploshhadi [Military parades in Red Square], ed. by V. M. Arhipov and I. P. Repin, 3rd edn (Moscow: Voenizdat, 1987) 218 Russian: ГУМ, pronounced [ˈɡum], an abbreviation of Russian: Глáвный универсáльный магазѝн, tr. Glávnyj Universáĺnyj Magazín, literally "Main Universal Store". 219 Kirichenko, Evgenija Ivanovna. Arhitekturnye teorii XIX veka v Rossii [Architectural theories in Russia in the XIXth century] (Mosсow: Iskusstvo, 1986) 220 For instance, Osnovy teorii sovetskoj arhitektury [Foundations of the theory of Soviet architecture], ed. by A. I. Gegello (Moscow, 1958)
88 returning to Moscow, and helped to establish contact with a local museum where some of Sherwood’s paintings are stored and displayed.221 A 1968 collective work on Soviet architecture was used to understand the main trends of the era and to contextualize the events at the SHM and other museums at the time.
The fifth group is composed of the works on Russian museological concepts and Russian museum history, ranging from the early 20th century to the modern period, to provide a general context in terms of dominant theories of every historical period in question. Most of these items are in Russian; for instance, three volumes book on museum history by V. Grizkevich, and a volume Istoriya muzeevedcheskoy mysli (History of museological thought), which is comprised of texts on museum theory and work from the early 18th century until the recent legislation.
Interviews
Since a part of my research deals with the late Soviet and post-Soviet periods, there was a possibility to obtain reliable data by conducting interviews with those members of staff who took part in the renovation of the 1980s and further events in the SHM history, which was especially important as most of these are poorly documented.
I conducted seven semi-structured interviews using the framework suggested during the educational sessions in the University of Leicester. First of all, I wrote an information sheet about the present research and described the role of an interviewee; I created a consent form in order to follow the University of Leicester’s Code of Ethics; I also created a personal information collection form in order to follow Russian legislation on protection of personal information. All of these documents were translated into Russian so that the participants could clarify everything. I decided to conduct interviews at the end of my second year, when a major part of the archival research was completed. Using case study methodology, discussed above, I understood that some of the data collected during the interviews might be checked through additional archival research. I used semi-structured interviews, following the aim to acquire the information which was missing in the SHM archive, such as staff memories about the 1986-1997 renovation, and details and facts that
221 Evgeny Lukianov, interview by A. Mikhailova, digital audio file and transcription, Moscow, 17 May 2015, State Historical Museum (SHM) [all interviews held by the author].
89 could not be included into the archival records due to their sensitive nature. Questions for each of the interviews were divided into three groups: participant’s background, the way she or he began working at the SHM and her or his career path, and memories about the renovation. I audio recorded each of the interviews, transcribed it, and sent them to the individuals for approval. Some participants made corrections in the texts, asking me not to include particular parts in the thesis.
Due to a number of constraints, the amount and variety of most interviews was slightly smaller than had originally been expected, the main reason being the relative recency of the events in question: the people involved did not feel that they could be as forthcoming as necessary while discussing the decision-making and their responsibilities. It is possible that during the renovation some events transpired that were not entirely legal due to the nature of doing business in the newly formed democratic Russia, and it is also possible that some of the current leaders were involved in these events. As became clear however, very few members of staff were involved in the decision-making process, along with several officials from the Ministry of Culture, and both federal and Moscow city governments, and therefore, they had relatively little to share regarding the matters in question. As a result, the contributions of two out of the seven interviews completed did not impact on the content or findings of the thesis.
Two interviews given by low and medium-ranking members of staff, although not able to shed light on the decision-making, were valuable in terms of providing the research with first-hand accounts of the renovation proceedings. The head of the archaeological department, Irina Belozerkovskaya, and the museum archive keeper, Irina Klushkina, shared a significant number of relatively small details, many of which are not presented in official documents. They also helped to make the perception of the events in question more human and less official. A similar effect was produced by the interview with the only surviving director, of the two who held that post during the renovation, Alexander Shkurko. He found time for two interviews, but he was careful while discussing the subject and asked me not to disclose some of the facts he shared. I have respected this request. He was, however, quite open while discussing his own role in the reconstruction, and quite critical while commenting on it. His contribution humanized the perception of the leadership and the organisational processes in this thesis in the
90 same way that Belozerkovskaya and Klushkina helped to see the events from a personal point of view.
Summary A microhistory of spatial transformations as a route to institutional understanding and reflection
The present thesis is a microhistory of spatial transformations at the State Historical Museum in Moscow, which took place during the formative years of the institution and during two highly significant renovations. It shares the main characteristics of the works conducted within this paradigm, including a detailed exploration of a well-defined case study, a thorough investigation of primary sources, purposefully chosen periods of time that are explored in depth, and attention to personal contributions, at the same being time respectful and mindful of the wider contexts and seeking to define what larger processes had an effect on the events in question. Following the principle of uncovering the wider understanding from an analysis of the small-scale, through the particulars of the case study, the thesis has studied the changes in treatment of museum buildings, the rise of museum work in Russia as a specialty, both practical and academic, and the specific features of administrative practices in Russian museums. In summary, recognising the built structure of the SHM as evidence of all of these elements (social, political and museological) the thesis explores the transformation of its built structures as a route to generating a greater understanding of the SHM as an institution and as a route to opening up a more aware and reflective approach to the management of the SHM facility today.
The contexts that are used to offer a fairer representation of the events that transpired are the political climate, including the role of the government in the cultural sphere at a given point; the structure of the economics and its effect on the Museum’s funding; Moscow and the Red Square as its built environment; and the development of museum work in Russia. These contexts are explored through a variety of primary and secondary sources, such as legislative documents, guidebooks, academic works on architecture and museums and in certain chapters, and visual representations of the objects under research, such as blueprints, photographs, and video footage. The internal life of the museum is studied primarily based on the archival data, which encompasses both the
91 personal files of the museum founders and staff, and the administrative documents, such as minutes of meetings, budget reports, and memos. A similar set of documents from another institution, the Polytechnic Museum, was used to perform comparative analysis of the earliest stages of both organisations’ development. The perception of the events of the last renovation were augmented by oral contributions of several members of staff, including one of the directors. Their interviews helped to form a more humanized approach to the events that could have otherwise become mechanical in approach.
92 Chapter 4: The Conception and Early Years of the SHM: Finding the Forms for a National History Museum This chapter explores the origin of the SHM, the social and political circumstances in which the museum was conceived and developed, and the physical environment of late 19th century Moscow in which it emerged. The chapter opens with the events that preceded the formation of the museum, from the earliest proposals to the Polytechnic Exhibition that played a significant role in its establishment. The chapter then follows the SHM microhistory and the history of the country, culminating in the opening ceremony in order to show how the urban, cultural and political contexts of Moscow contributed to the formation of the SHM. The primary focus of the chapter is exploring the early administrative practices that shaped the museum and the decision-making process at such a crucial stage as the formation of the entire facility, including its physical form.
A major challenge that the material of the chapter presents is the historical period in which the museum was formed and built, as it would be unprofessional to explore it by applying modern museum studies and facility management framework, which was described in the theoretical section. The chapter explores the particular period in which the museum emerged, the reign of Alexander II the Liberator and Alexander III the Peacemaker, and the history, traditions, and culture of Moscow, including the fashionable architectural trend of the time, the Russian style, and its interpretation of those involved in shaping the museum. The early stages of the SHM history overlap with the formative years for the museum community of Russia and the ensuing museum boom, which is taken into account. It is also discussed how these first museums were established and to what extent the Government was involved, which is especially important for future reference in order to draw comparisons with the Soviet period.
Another method of avoiding analysing the performance of the SHM management in modern terms and concepts is a justified comparative strategy, specifically using the data about a museum that emerged in a highly similar context, the Polytechnic. The elements of the institutional histories of the SHM and the Polytechnic that are comparable and relevant are the circumstances of their formation, the Polytechnic Exhibition, and the contexts in which they were conceived, established and built: the
93 historical period, the built environment, the state of the museum sector, and even personal connections between the founders.
A major part of this chapter is devoted to exploring the role and thinking process of those involved in the establishment of the SHM. As the emergence of the museum was made possible by actions of individuals, it also appears that personal connections and opinions played a significant role in the decision-making process, such figures as the founders Ivan Zabel and Alexey Uvarov, and the architect Vladimir Sherwood, and so their relationships are described in detail.
The Earliest Proposals for a Museum of Russian National History
In early December 1871 Nikolay Chepelevsky, an Army colonel, military writer, and historian, sent a letter to Alexander Alexandrovich, the crown prince of the Russian Empire, in which he expressed the need to create a museum of Russian history. He had a vision of a place which he described in the following way:
A temple, established in the glory of the Russian people’s life, which has to store all the sacred items, treasures and documents from all over the country, depict all the prominent figures and important events, tell stories about Russian history.222
By the 1870s, when Chepelevsky promoted the need for such a museum in Russia on a state level for the first time, several national museums had already been established in European countries, such as the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest (1802), the National Museum in Prague (1818), the National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen (1819), and the Bavarian National Museum in Munich (1855). By looking at a list of the museums established in the 19th century, it can be concluded that those dedicated to national history were a minority compared to the other types, such as art and natural history. It is unclear why such projects were not more common: a lack of collections
222 Avram Moiseevich Razgon, Istoricheskie muzei v Rossii (s nachala XVIII veka do 1861 g.) [Historical museums in Russia since the beginning of XVIIIth century till 1861], Ocherki istorii muzejnogo dela v SSSR. Vol 5 (Moscow: NII muzeevedenija, 1963), p. 236.
94 that would cover such a diverse subject in possession of one museum; a lack of funding; or complexity of the subject itself. Though in his proposal Chepelevsky did not refer to any existing museums, it can be assumed that his notion reflected the spirit of the times. 223 According to Jurenenva, the emergence of national museums at the beginning of the 19th century all over Europe was a logical consequence of the Romantic movement that, after considerable disappointment in unfulfilled vows of their predecessors, proclaimed a return to national roots.224 At the same time, the Napoleonic wars and movement for independence contributed greatly to the growth of national identity, and the massive restitution all over Europe following Napoleon's defeat led to recognition of the value of the returned artefacts that went to existing or emerging museums.225
Despite the fact that Chepelevsky’s proposal was the first one to address Government representatives on such a high level, it was not the first of its kind. Since Chepelevsky did not refer to any previous proposals, it is not clear whether or not he was familiar with his predecessor's ideas, which date back to the first quarter of the 19th century. In Russia, the main event at that time was the victory in the 1812 war with France that led, among other consequences, to a significant increase in patriotism. It seems, therefore, perfectly logical that not one, but two proposals for a museum of national history were soon published. The first one was presented by historian and linguist Fedor Adelung in 1817, and the second by historian and collector Burhard Genrih Vikhman in 1821. Full texts of both proposals can be found in the book entitled Istoriya muzeevedcheckoy mysli (The History of Museological Thought in Russia), which was published in Moscow in 2010.
Both proposals contain a clear understanding of how such a museum of Russian history could have been organised. Even though neither of the authors had any previous museum related experience, they offered those ideas and suggestions that would have been highly useful later on during the construction and the first few years of the SHM’s existence. Thus, for instance, both Adelung and Vikhman stressed the importance of the tsar’s involvement in the establishment of the museum, both through allocating the necessary funds from the budget and by encouraging low, mid, and high level
223 Hungarian National Museum, The founding of the Museum, History of the Museum
95 authorities to participate in terms of cooperation, funding, and even collection acquisition.226 As for further funding, both authors promoted the idea that it had to be the Russian people who would later on support the museum with money – not through purchasing tickets, but by donating.
Compared to Vikhman’s proposal, Adelung’s was better structured and detailed: it included a discussion on what we would today call museum funding, management, facility, and usage, and he often used what today read as modern terms. Adelung spoke about the needs of two types of potential visitors: the general public and professionals in particular areas of science. As for the spatial organisation of the museum, Adelung suggested constructing a special building which would be “big and vast enough”227; he was also quite certain about the location – Saint Petersburg, the then capital.
Both proposals stressed the idea that the practice of collecting objects for a future museum had to be implemented right away and with significant functional and geographical variety. The authors’ taxonomy for the objects slightly differed, but by and large they both spoke about historical documents, books and manuscripts, geographical and natural science collections, and portraits of Russian monarchs and other prominent people.
Despite these early and surprisingly detailed proposals, it would take more than 50 years before the project of a national history museum gained momentum. It would seem that the original proposals had little or no impact on the actual SHM, as none of the suggestions were followed and none of the available sources on the decision-making process, both personal and official, mention the existence of Adelung’s or Vikhman’s proposals. Adelung’s and Vikhman’s work was very much ahead of its time, in terms of their views on what modern museum specialists call operations, collection acquisitions, visitor involvement, and other matters; they also offered an insight into the importance of royal support for such a large-scale project, and the SHM team could have significantly benefited from their knowledge and ideas. Despite the fact that the proposals had been published 50 years prior to the formation of the Museum, they came
226Muzeevedcheskaja myself' v Rossii XVIII - XX vekov, pp. 179 and 197. 227 Ibid, p. 181.
96 out in an important, widely discussed social and political periodical, Syn otechestva (Son of the Fatherland), and were potentially accessible. 228
The fact that 50 years passed from when the idea of a national history museum was first expressed, to any activity that was aimed at its establishment, raises a significant number of questions. Who were the people that successfully promoted the idea of the museum? How did they gain support for the project and what conditions meant that their plans were taken forward? Why was Moscow chosen to host the museum, rather than Saint Petersburg, the then capital of the Empire and the centre of political life, or even Kiev, Novgorod, or Vladimir, the early capital cities of the (pre-)feudal Rus? Bearing these questions in mind, the next section will be devoted to the events and circumstances that preceded the foundation of the SHM.
The Polytechnic Exhibition
The history of both the SHM and the Polytechnic Museum began with the Polytechnic Exhibition in the summer of 1872. In Europe it was not uncommon for museums to be founded as a result of such science and art exhibitions; the most representative examples being the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Natural History museum. and the Science Museum in London, which were both established after The Great Exhibition of 1851.229 Being a part of the city landscape both in Europe and the USA, during the second half of the 19th century, such exhibitions in many ways influenced the areas around them both in terms of spatial and functional transformations. In the case of London, a special part of the city, South Kensington, was redesigned and modernized in order to host a world-class exhibition and also to give room for further developments which included, among others, the creation of ‘a vast machine that promoted understanding of technology of the day’.230 Prince Albert, one of the initiators of the Great exhibition, following its considerable success, proposed the idea of establishing a number of
228 Avram Moiseevich Razgon, ‘Rossijskij Istoricheskij muzej. istorija ego osnovanija i dejatel'nosti (1872-1917 gg.)’, p. 228. 229 P. A. Matveeva, Vsemirnye vystavki kak prototipy jetnograficheskih muzeev [World exhibitions as prototypes of ethnographic museums], Jelektronnaja biblioteka Muzeja antropologii i jetnografii im. Petra Velikogo (Kunstkamera) RAN, 2013
97 institutions in South Kensington, including libraries, colleges, meeting centres, and museums. Thus, in the late 19th century, a previously rural area was converted into a new centre for arts and sciences.231
Unlike the arrangements in South Kensington, the Polytechnic Exhibition in Moscow took place in the city centre, which meant that it was, from the very start, limited in terms of available space and had to follow certain traditions for style and design, which were developed by Moscow city authorities.232 The exhibition was held in the Alexandrovsky garden, near the Kremlin, as well as in the Kremlin itself, and it lasted the whole summer of 1872. One of the aims of the exhibition was to commemorate what would have been Peter the Great’s 200th birthday.233
The country was honouring the memory of one of its most remarkable monarchs, who had largely contributed to modernizing its rather conservative economy, legal system, and many aspects of social life. The organizers of the exhibition thought of it as an experiment preparing them for the next step, which was opening a full-scale polytechnic museum. From the spatial point of view, the Polytechnic Exhibition was the first of its kind in Russia, since all 24 departments were located in pavilions rather than in the one big building. In order to provide the exhibition with suitable facilities, a number of prominent Russian architects were invited to join the project, and among them were people who would later work on the SHM and the Polytechnic Museum – Anatoly Semenov and Ippolit Monigetti.
Moscow already had experience in launching museums though exhibitions: in the 1860s, there were at least two which resulted in the creation of permanent public institutions, the Moscow Zoo and the Russian Museum of Ethnography in Saint Petersburg. The person who initiated these exhibitions, as well as contributed to the establishment of an important scientific body – the Society of Devotees of Natural Science, Anthropology, and Ethnography (1863) – was Anatoly Bogdanov, a zoologist,
231 Miriam R. Levin, Sophie Forgan, Martina Hessler, Robert H. Kargon and Morris Low, Urban Modernity: Cultural Innovation in the Second Industrial Revolution (Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England: MIT, 2010)
98 anthropologist, and professor at Moscow University. Bogdanov maintained that such exhibitions could play the role as public education institutions, and those collections gathered through them could become a basis for future museums. In 1869, after the success of the aforementioned exhibitions, Bogdanov proposed to organize a new one, dedicated to a broader variety of subjects, including natural history, technology, physics, chemistry, mechanics, in other words, a Polytechnic Exhibition which could later become a museum of applied knowledge. In a talk given in May 1870 at the Moscow City Duma, Bogdanov explained the role of the future exhibition, which was to show the scientific basis of current industrial activities in Russia. He also shared his insights into European museum practices, such as the history of South Kensington, which could, he argued, be used as examples for the Russian exhibition.234
Bogdanov’s passion was quick to bear fruit. On May 30the (June 11th) 1872,235 the Polytechnic Exhibition of the Moscow University was officially opened, presenting all the current achievements in agriculture, science, shipbuilding, and manufacturing goods.236 There are a number of sources237 on the Polytechnic Exhibition, and one of them, reports published by the aforementioned Society of Devotees, provides us with an overview of principles which were used in the course of preparations. First of all, the structure of the exhibition was based on a systematic approach so that each of the departments of the future museum would practice exhibiting different types of objects. Second, most of the objects presented at the exhibition were meant to become a part of the museum’s collection.238
Apart from the science-oriented sections, the exhibition included a section on historical achievements and another specifically dedicated to the Crimean War of 1853-1856. As mentioned in one of the guide books, from the formal point of view, this department, which was named after the Sevastopol battle, was not a part of the Polytechnic Exhibition, since it had its own structure and organisation; however, it was available for public view. A number of varied items were exhibited in one place: archaeological
234 Moskovskij muzej prikladnyh znanij. [...] [Moscow museum of applied knowledge...], p. 7 235 Before the Revolution of 1917 Russia used another calendar, so Europe was 2 weeks ahead 236 Preparatory works began a few years earlier, thus, for instance, the Goal and the description of the future exhibition was published in 1870. 237 See the resources under the article: Prezidentskaja biblioteka. Den' v istorii.
99 artefacts, military documents and weapons, and modern medical devices. The main aim of the pavilion was to commemorate the war by sharing information about it with wider audiences. The people in charge of the pavilion had a military background: the aforementioned Nikolay Chepelevsky, who had given public talks on the Siege of Sevastopol; his colleague Alexander Zelenoy, the adjutant general who took part in the Siege; and military engineer Anatoly Semenov, who designed the layout for the pavilion. While preparing the exhibition, they decided to propose the project of a historical museum based on the materials they had collected. In January 1872, before the exhibition was opened, Alexander Zelenoy, on behalf of the team, contacted the future Alexander III with their proposal. It is traditionally perceived that both he and his father, Alexander II, expressed strong approval of the idea, which was also supported by Moscow University, specifically by the Society of Devotees. However, there was no official document signed by the Emperor that can be considered an order to establish the facility, only a note attached to the return letter to Zelenoy. The date on the note, the 9th of February 1872, is officially celebrated as the day when the SHM was established.
The Polytechnic Museum was established by the same Emperor, Alexander II, two years earlier, in October 1870. Earlier that year, in August 1870, the Moscow City Duma proposed the project of establishing the Polytechnic museum to the Ministry of Finance and received its support. According to different sources, the Minister of Finance allocated between 400 and 500 thousand rubles for the future museum.239
In case of the SHM, its founders were optimistic about the funding and took a different approach; since the project was of national importance, they were going to use crowdfunding in order to support it. The sum required for the construction only was rather impressive, approximately one million rubles, and since at that time there was no clear acquisition policy, it was quite hard to estimate how much was required to cover collection and operating costs.
239 Izvestija imperatorskogo obshhestva ljubitelej estestvoznanija, antropologii i jetnografii, tom 15. Moskovskij muzej prikladnyh znanij. Materialy, kasajushhiesja ustrojstva muzeja, rechi, proiznesennye pri ego otkrytii 30-go nojabrja 1872 goda, otchet vysochajshe uchrezhdennogo komiteta muzeja za pervyj god ego sushhestvovanija po 30 nojabrja 1873 goda. Pod redakciej sekretarja Komiteta N.K. Zengera. Zengera (Moscow: Tipografija Gracheva i K. u Prechistenskih vorot, dom Shilovoj. 1874), pp. 57
100 Establishing Museums in Russia
Before moving on to talk about the spatial history of both these museums, I would like to focus on the way museums of such scale – national ones – were legally established in the Russian Empire in the second half of the 19th century. Based on the sources available, it is possible to infer that there was no clear cultural policy in Russia before the Revolution of 1917, neither in terms of the legal procedure, nor in any official recommendations regarding what we today would call management or collection acquisition.
If someone wished to establish a museum of national scale and receive support from the state, they had to submit a written proposal to the city council, which would be forwarded to the Ministry of Finance, where it would be revised and only then would it reach the Emperor. If the Emperor approved the proposal, the Ministry of Finance would provide preliminary funding, whereas the city council would help with the land for a museum. After these initial steps, it was the museum committee who were responsible for the funding and the management, and the members of staff who were in charge of the collections and exhibitions. Looking back at the late 19th century museum sector in Russia, it can be seen that, as opposed to a heavily centralized Soviet system that would replace it, pre-Revolution museums had a variety of funding sources, both Governmental and private, and had more choice in their collection policies and other matters.
It seems that museums were able to make decisions as they saw fit; for instance, in the case of acquisition policy, members of staff could rely on the current achievements in the field of sciences rather than follow instructions given by the state. There was no Governmental body responsible for cultural affairs (such as, for example, a Ministry of Culture), so the museums created at this time could be funded and managed by scientific societies, the Church, or private donors.240 It should be added that several museums of national importance, for instance, the Hermitage and the Russian Museum, were supported by the Royal family: this meant that the family made generous
240 For instance, numerous regional museums, as well as such world-wide known museums as the State Tretyakov Gallery and the State Pushkin Museum of Fine arts were both established by individuals and later donated to the state.
101 donations and presided over these institutions. Overall, neither the Royal family nor the Government overcontrolled the sector.
The SHM and the Polytechnic Museum
Looking back at the 1870s museum sector worldwide, it could be seen that most professionals involved in the field had a background in either art history or natural sciences; they were keen on researching collections, whereas managerial practices were at the very beginning of their development. There were no university departments that offered the study of museology and no professional organisations where these issues could be discussed. The very first steps in establishing a professional museum association were made during the 1870-1880s in the UK; in Russia, these processes would begin even later, in the early 1900s. Thus, while working on the SHM and the Polytechnic Museum projects, the committee members had very few opportunities to gain experience in museum establishment.
By this time, various museum catalogues were available, however, this type of professional literature could cover only one of the many issues the future museums would face. As for the other ones, for instance, museum building and public activities, the most reasonable way for museum staff to learn was to familiarise themselves with other museums’ experiences by going abroad and meeting colleagues from other institutions. This is what was done by the Polytechnic Museum committee, who supported its members in travelling abroad. The initiative of learning Western museum practices was introduced by Bogdanov, the founder of the aforementioned Moscow University society, and one of the organisers of the Polytechnic Exhibition. This is known from the annual reports that the Polytechnic Museum committee published on a regular basis from their earliest beginnings; these publications are a valuable source on the history of management in Russian museums. For instance, in the second report published in early 1874, Bogdanov argued for the need of a clear mission, and focused on organisational matters first and fundraising matters later.
As for the SHM, the way the committee documented its work was quite different; for instance, the very first annual report was published in 1885, two years after the museum
102 was officially opened to the public. The period between 1872, when the SHM was established by the tsar, and 1885, can be studied through correspondence between members of the committee, various minutes of meetings concerning the construction, and several newspaper articles which promoted the need for a museum of Russian history.
Both committees were chaired by members of the Royal family, who had final say on each major decision (for instance, approval of architectural design or financial support), however, they did not take part in everyday management. Each museum was managed by a deputy chairman; the committee itself was comprised of several departments, for example, there was a building committee which functioned during the construction stage. In the case of the Polytechnic Museum, there was a financial department responsible for fiscal control. There was a number of committee members who had a right to vote, and they had to meet on a regular basis in order to make decisions, whereas aforementioned departments completed certain tasks and had to report during the committee meetings.241 Even though the structure of both committees was quite similar (the Polytechnic had more departments), the way they managed their museums differed significantly.
The SHM committee was managed by the chairman, Alexander Zelenoy, who worked alongside two deputy chairmen, Nikolay Chepelevsky and Alexey Uvarov. Uvarov was an archaeologist, while Zelenoy and Chepelevsky both had military backgrounds. All three of them were responsible for general management, including the funding. There were three committees, one of the most important at this stage being the academic one. Its members worked on architectural design, exhibition layout, and collection acquisition. Chaired by Uvarov, the department also contained, among its ranks Ivan Zabelin, a prominent historian who would have a considerable impact on the SHM’s construction.
Zabelin’s work was focused on multiple areas, and among them a 19th century architectural direction that was referred to as the Russian style. A number of first
241 Instrukcija po stroitel'stvu zdanija Muzeja, razrabotannaja v 1874 g. [Instructions for the construction of the Museum building, designed in 1874], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 3
103 wooden, and then stone buildings were erected in Moscow following the principles of the newly established style, for instance, the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour and the Moscow City Duma, as well as the pavilions of the Polytechnic exhibition. These objects’ decorative and structural features drew upon the Byzantine architectural tradition, as it was associated with the Russian Orthodoxy, and on the designs implemented in both civil and church buildings constructed in various parts of Ancient Rus. The elements inspired by these two architectural traditions included such items as ceiling vaults and paintings, door and window framing, and roof structures.
The style was not homogenous, which is reflected in the academic literature that uses a variety of terms to describe the same or similar architectural concepts. One of such terms is the Pseudo-Russian style, where an emphasis is placed on the inauthenticity of architectural choices. Another term is the Russian Revival, or the neo-Russian style. Some authors use it similarly to Baroque Revival or the Neo-Gothic Style: to identify a movement that followed a preceding one; some use this term to describe a smaller fraction of the later varieties of the original Russian style. As a formal, architectural reading is not the object of this thesis, I have chosen not to engage in the ongoing Russian academic debate about the best term and its detailed definition. It is also beyond the scope of this thesis what features of the SHM building are specific to the style or unique, as the term itself does not have established meaning.
While the Russian Revival movement is often viewed as a return to the roots of Russian architecture, the traditional zodchestvo, ome architects and academics, for instance, Alfred Parland, considered it rather as a necessary continuation of the local architectural development that was halted in the16th-17th centuries by Peter the Great and his insistence on designing according to contemporary European styles. As a result, sometimes the Russian style could be politicised, viewed as patriotic, by those who implemented it. Similarly, the founders of the SHM were focused on the development of physical form of what they considered the ‘Russian style’, placing the importance of national identity on its architectural features.
104 During the early 1870s, Zabelin gave a number of talks on Russian history and ancient Russian architecture, and during these lectures he met Vladimir Sherwood,242 a young artist from Moscow, who also had a strong interest in the Russian style. It is important to stress that there are no particular written documents that could prove that it was Sherwood’s passion for the Russian style that led Zabelin and Uvarov to hire him as the architect for the SHM building. However, it seems possible to assume that Sherwood’s involvement and interest had a significant impact on the decision-making process of the academic committee. Thus, during the meeting which took place on 6 June 1874, the committee members stated that there was no need to hold a contest for architect, since Sherwood was an ideal candidate and there were few designers to choose from.243 This statement appears to be inaccurate, as the entire Polytechnic Exhibition, not just the section that later transformed into the SHM, was designed according to the principles of the Russian style. What also makes the hiring decision questionable is the fact that the SHM project was going to become the very first architectural project for Sherwood, whose educational background was technically in fine arts. The decision to hire a designer, and not strictly speaking an architect, could be explained by the fact that at first it was all that was required of Sherwood, and there was a separate position of civil engineer that was given to Anatoly Semenov, who had also been involved in the Polytechnic Exhibition, and later, the Polytechnic Museum.
The same factor that led to involving Sherwood in the project – his passion for the Russian style – would later become the reason for tensions between him and Ivan Zabelin because of the differences in interpretation. It is unclear if they discussed these differences in their earliest meetings or if they only became apparent during the designing stages.
Sherwood had a thought-out approach: he saw architecture as a means to formulate ideas of national importance, promote Russian Orthodoxy and national identity.244 Sherwood was truly passionate about Orthodoxy, which he saw as one of the purest
242 I. E. Zabelin, Dnevniki. Zapisnye knizhki [Diaries. Notebooks] (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo imeni Sabashnikovyh, 2001), p. 95. 243 Zhurnal zasedanij Soveshhatel'nogo prisutstvija po sooruzheniju zdanija Muzeja za 1874–1875 gg. i dokumenty k nemu [Minute book of consultative assembly for the construction of the Museum building for 1874 and 1875 and accompanied documentation], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 16, folio 5. 244 Evgenija Ivanovna Kirichenko. Arhitekturnye teorii XIX veka v Rossii, p. 265
105 surviving Christian religions, and was interested in the issues of the Russian “special path”, a sort of Sonderweg; though only half of his family was Russian, the other half being English Catholics.245 Sherwood’s main goal was to find those tools and methods which would make beauty work for the greater good. In his theory of architecture, Sherwood focused on the importance of interior decoration, more precisely, on the way it impacted people’s feelings.246 Sherwood wanted to create the space of the SHM as both an architect and an interior designer, even though he may not have thought of his work in these modern terms. His experience in the fine arts could be applied to developing the interiors, and the SHM would become a kind of tangible manifesto of his ideas, embodying Russian history and the national idea:247 Orthodoxy.248
While Sherwood saw Russian history as a history of adapting and developing Christianity, Zabelin understood it as people’s history, which for him was more important and more meaningful than the history of the entire state. From Zabelin’s point of view, history could be understood through objects of everyday life; that was the reason why he described his approach by using the term “archaeology”, which at that point in time meant studying material forms of the traditional way of life.249 Zabelin viewed the Russian Revival style as a logical successor of Russian traditional wooden architecture, zodchestvo, which originated in pre-Christian times. He believed that the origin of the Russian Style was rooted in an izba, a traditional Russian house. Zabelin characterized the style as picturesque, natural, and diverse.250 The most significant example of the true Russian style, in his opinion, was St Basil’s cathedral on the Red Square.
Late 19th century Moscow as a built environment
Initially the Committee had planned to use a piece of land near the Kremlin wall and only in 1874 they were offered the current spot by donation of the City Duma. Correspondence analysis shows that the project, from the very beginning, was meant to
245 Hence the surname. 246 Ibid., p. 268. 247 Ibid., pp. 266-267. 248 Ibid., p. 267. 249 Ibid., p. 230. 250 Ibid., p. 232.
106 be built in Moscow and on the Red Square (or near it); other cities and locations were not even considered. This could be explained, firstly, simply by the fact that the members of the Committee were mainly from Moscow, but there is broader context and built environment to be considered. There are several ancient Russian cities that could have been good candidates for the museum because of thousands of years of their history, such as, for instance, Kiev, the capital of Ancient Rus, also known as the mother of Russian cities. It was, however, located too far from both Moscow and Saint Petersburg and was more associated with specifically Ukrainian territories at that time. Some closer cities, such as Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov Veliky, Yaroslavl, or Veliky Novgorod, may have been considered provincial, and thus could not host a museum of national importance.
Built environment is defined by Anthony D. King as all built forms produced by a certain society in a particular period of time. The aim of the following section is to include the SHM building in a wider context – a city one – and uncover the reasons why it was built in a particular location (the Red Square in Moscow) and in a particular style (so called Russian style). Moscow has to be analysed in terms of its political, cultural, and economic role in Russia throughout the centuries, with special attention to the second half of the 19th century, when the SHM was founded. The Red Square also went through a number of transformations and bears considerable significance for Russian culture, with certain properties and symbols assigned to it, which are also examined further.
Moscow was first mentioned in Russian chronicles in 1147, and for many years up until the Bolshevik revolution it had a reputation of an important trade centre and a major crossroads, even under the rule of the Golden Horde. The first Russian monarch to officially renounce the rule of the Horde was Ivan III (Ivan the Great), and in the time of his reign some of the last (semi-)independent political formations on the territory of modern central Russia, such as Novgorod and Rostov areas, finally lost their feudal status and pledged their loyalty to the crown. In the course of legal and military land acquisitions, the Duchy of Muscovy gained the status of a major Orthodox religious centre and received considerable political power and significance, with the Kremlin fortress steadily becoming the symbol of those properties. This new role influenced the built environment of the city, where newly erected buildings had to perform at least two
107 functions: to protect the ever-growing city, and at the same time convey its importance. Stone architecture was becoming more and more common in Moscow, as opposed to traditional wood. As for the particular style of these buildings, it should be mentioned that it was brought from Vladimiro-Suzdalian Duchy,251 which used to be another influential region in those times. Architectural continuity will become a subject of further discussion in the context of the SHM interior decorations.
Moscow remained the main Russian city up until 1712, when Peter the Great, one of the most prominent Russian emperors, moved the capital to the newly founded Saint Petersburg. Historians cite various reasons why Peter founded a new capital, for instance: its coastal location and proximity to Europe (“the window into Europe”) and allowing better trade and military opportunities. There was also a rhetoric of modernisation, of including Russia into the circle of world powers and abandoning some of the outdated traditions, which Moscow was the symbol of, in favour of a European lifestyle, with a new location for the Government and the court.
There is also evidence suggesting that Peter had personal reasons to dislike Moscow, the city he associated with family issues. Peter was part of a number of conflicts between his relatives from the early years of his life. The main reason for these conflicts was the fact that tsar Alexey Romanov, Peter’s father, was married twice and, therefore, there were two families that could try to claim the Russian throne after his death; Peter was the oldest son in the second family. In 1682 Peter, aged 10, witnessed the murder of his closest supporters in the Kremlin, after which he and his mother were forced to flee from Moscow and stay in the countryside. Even though Peter, together with his brother and sister, was eventually appointed to the throne, he did not spend much time in Moscow, or more precisely, in the Kremlin, the traditional residence of the Russian tsars. He established his own residence in Preobrazhenskoe village (8 km from the Kremlin), and also travelled frequently, both regionally and abroad.252
251 Pamjatniki arhitektury Moskvy. Kreml'. Kitaj - gorod. Central'nye ploshhadi [Architectural monuments of Moscow. The Kremlin. Kitai-Gorod. Central squares] Ed. by A.I. Komech and V.I. Pluzhnikov (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1982), p. 38. 252 Vasilij Osipovich Kljuchevskij, Lekcija LIX [Lecture 59], in Kurs russkoj istorii (Lekcii XXXIII-LXI) [Course of lectures on Russian history (Lectures 33-61)]
108 After Peter gained full control of the throne in 1696, and until Saint Petersburg was founded and more or less ready to host the Government and the court, Peter (and the capital) remained in Moscow. However, the political centre had already shifted from the Kremlin to the north-eastern part of the city, to the aforementioned village, where Peter’s military troops were based. As for the old city centre, it also continued growing, and a number of prominent public buildings were erected. One of them, the Main Apotheke, functioned as a public health facility, selling medicine to Moscow citizens, as well as for the army and other cities. It was built on the Red Square and later demolished in order to give space for the SHM.
It should be stressed that although Peter moved the secular capital to Saint Petersburg, coronations of all following tsars were held at the Uspensky Cathedral in the Kremlin and included a ceremonial walk on the Red Square. Thus, the Kremlin, with all its cathedrals and monasteries, still had a role to play in the political life of the country, albeit a symbolic one. The Uspensky Cathedral remained the main cathedral of the Russian Orthodox church until the Revolution of 1917.
Even though the development of Moscow slowed, since many of the nobility joined Peter in Saint Petersburg, bringing with them finances and other resources, the city continued growing as a trade centre, with most of the population being merchants and other entrepreneurs and their employees. An event of significant proportions occurred in 1812: during the invasion of Napoleon’s army, 80% of buildings in Moscow were destroyed in a fire that raged for several days. During the war, Moscow received a new status, becoming the symbol of the patriotic movement. The reconstruction of the city began just after the war; however, it took five years before the new city plan was finally approved.
A special Committee with architect Osip Bove as its head was organised in order to deal with urban planning and after-war reconstruction. One of its tasks was to develop a standard style for all Moscow buildings. Osip Bove was responsible for city centre renovation, which resulted in the creation of a system of ring roads, like at Zemlyanoy Val, one of the former defensive earthworks, where it was rebuilt into a road known today as the Sadovoe ring. It should be mentioned that since that time wooden buildings have been prohibited inside the Sadovoe ring. Bove also designed several prominent
109 monuments, among them the Bolshoy theatre, the Triumphal arch, the Manege, and the first city hospital. One of his most famous projects was the garden near the Kremlin, which was named after Alexander I in order to commemorate his role in the Patriotic war of 1812. The Red Square was restored as well, and it at this time, in the early 19th century, when it became the main square in the city.
The name “Red Square” originated in the 16th century, when it first referred to the area surrounding the newly erected Saint Basil’s Cathedral, and then to the whole architectural ensemble of the square. The adjective “krasnaya” – “red” – was not used in its modern meaning; it was the Old Russian word for “beautiful”.253 Throughout its history the Red Square performed several functions: before the 16th century the territory of the square was intentionally left empty for tactical purposes, the protection of the Kremlin; then, in the 16th century the eastern part of the grounds was given to merchants who built dozens of shops there. Up until the mid-17th century, the space near St. Basil’s Cathedral was used for public announcements, executions, and religious ceremonies (fig. 3). The northern part of the square was occupied with administrative and public buildings: the aforementioned Main Apotheke254 (built in 1700), the Mint (1697), the Kazansky cathedral (1625), and the Voskresensky gate (1689), which served as the main entrance to the square (fig. 4).
After the fire of 1812, the Red Square was restored: the old shops were replaced with a market built in stone, and the monument to Minin and Pozharsky was erected. Thus, by the early 1870s, when the SHM construction was about to begin, the architectural ensemble of the Red Square had already been formed, and the museum Committee was, therefore, quite limited in the possible design solutions.
In order to contextualise the SHM within the society which produced it, it is necessary to describe the population of Moscow in the 1870s, and specifically focus on the cultural activities, among them museum-going, that were available to the citizens. In the 1870s, it was one of largest cities in Russia: according to a survey conducted in
253 Vladimir Vladimirovich Nazarevskij. Iz istorii Moskvy, 1147-1913 : illjustrir. ocherki V. V. Nazarevskogo [On the history of Moscow, 1147-1913: I Essays by Nazarevskij] (Moscow: Skoropech. A. A. Levenson, 1914); Zeleneckij, Ivan Ksaver'evich. Istorija Krasnoj ploshhadi [History of the Red Square] (Moscow: Univ. tip., 1851) 254 Which was later donated to Moscow University - the first university in Russia.
110 December 1871. Its population consisted of 354 000 men and 248 thousand women;255 approximately the same number of people lived in the capital, Saint Petersburg.
Almost half of Moscow’s citizens were peasants. They and the other inhabitants were, according to the texts of the time, more traditional in their lifestyle than the people of Saint Petersburg and more religious,256 the predominant religion being Russian Orthodoxy. Forty per cent of the population was illiterate,257 although the local schools were improving the situation.258 Fasting was common, and the main holidays were religious ones, such as Orthodox Christmas and Easter; Sunday, as a day of worship, was everyone’s day off. An 1860s book that offers advice on sightseeing lists more cathedrals, churches, and monasteries than any other objects combined.259 In their free time, citizens could go to numerous drinking establishments, however, there was a sobriety movement at the time, and those who supported it could choose other activities among Moscow’s several theatres and museums.
The oldest collections in Moscow that were exhibited to the public were showcased in the Romanov Chambers,260 located approximately a kilometre away from the Kremlin, and the Kremlin Armoury. The collections consisted of jewellery and weapons that belonged to the royalty of the past.261 The Armoury collections were transferred into a new building nearby in 1851,262 and the Chambers were renovated in the 1860s, making it possible to assume that the local Government was comfortable with spatial changes even in the most central areas of the city.
255 Perepis' Moskvy 1882 goda [Moscow Census of 1882] (Moscow: Gor. tip., 1885-1886), p. 2 256 Vladimir Vladimirovich Nazarevskij. Iz istorii Moskvy. 257 Ibid., p. 361 258 Perepis' Moskvy 1882 goda, pp. 79-80. 259 M. P. Zaharov, Putevoditel' po Moskve i ukazatel' ee dostoprimechatel'nostej: s planom Moskvy [Guide and index its sightseeings: with the plan of Moscow], 3rd edn (Moscow: v Univ. tip. Katkov i K°, 1868). 260 V. T. Baronovoj, Muzej "Dom bojarina XVII veka" [Museum “Court Nobility House of the 17th century”] (Leningrad: Academia, 1928) 261 N. A. Nadezhdin, Moskovskaja oruzhejnaja palata [Moscow Armory] (Saint Petersburg, Moscow: t- vo M.O. Vol'f, cenz., 1902) 262 Nikolaj Alekseevich Romanskij, Kratkij tolkovyj putevoditel' po Moskve [Short explanatory Guide] (Moscow: Gavrilov, 1898).
111 The very first organisation in Moscow to promote itself as a public museum was the Moscow Public and Rumyantsev Museum (1862),263 as opposed to the Saint Petersburg Kunstkamera (1714) and the Hermitage (founded in 1764, made public in 1852). The Rumyantsev Museum, originally located in Saint Petersburg, possessed a wide variety of ethnographic objects, historical items, natural specimens, as well as ancient Russian books and manuscripts that had been collected by the diplomat and count N.P. Rumyantsev, hence the name. The collection was first displayed three years after his death in Saint Petersburg in 1831 and later transferred to Moscow, 264 as the academic community in Saint Petersburg did not have enough interest in preserving and examining these items.265
In 1865, another museum was opened in the building next door belonging to the Golitsyn family.266 The son of the late duke Mikhail Golitsyn, following his father's last will, shared his family’s library and extensive collection of Western European art with the public.267 As the other few Moscow museums of the time, Golitsyn’s also offered free admission; this, perhaps, played a part in the eventual dissolution of the organisation and Golitsyn’s decision to sell the collections to the Hermitage and other museums in times of financial trouble in his family.
By the end of the 19th century, the number of museums in Russia increased dramatically, from just several similar museums in the 18th century, up to more than 150 museums of various types. This became possible because of active participation of the royalty, nobility, and merchants, who opened private museums and funded the existing ones. Not only were large art museums opened, such as the Russian Museum in Saint Petersburg and the Tretyakov gallery in Moscow, but also a significant number of provincial museums dedicated to local history. Approximately forty-five museums were
263 Aleksej Mihajlovich Kubarev, Moskovskij publichnyj muzej i Biblioteka [The Moscow public museum and Library] (Moscow: Univ. tip. Katkov i K°, 1866) 264 Ob uchrezhdenii Rumjancevskogo muzeja [On the establishment of the Rumyantsev Museum], in Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossijskoj imperii, sobranie vtoroe. vol III, 1828, № 1890 (Saint Petersburg: Tipografija II otdelenija Sobstvennoj Ego Imperatorskogo Velichestva kanceljarii, 1830), pp. 324-325. 265 Ibid., pp. 145-146. 266 Natal'ja Evgen'evna Tret'jakova, ‘Ot Kartinnoj galerei Golicynskoj bol'nicy do Golicynskogo muzeja na Volhonke: Hudozhestvennye sobranija knjazej Golicynyh vtoroj poloviny XVIII - XIX vekov’ [From the Golitsyn hospital’s art gallery to the Golitsyn Museum on Volkhonka street: Art collection of the Golitsyns of the second half of the XVIII-XIX centuries] (MGAHI im. V. I. Surikova, Moscow, 2005) 267 Karl Markovich Gjuncburg, Moskovskij Golicynskij muzej [Moscow Golitsyn Museum], 2 vols (Moscow: Univ. tip., [1867]-1868).
112 established between 1861 and 1905.268 It was also the time when the need for establishing a professional museum community was first voiced. In December 1912, the first inaugural meeting took place at the Russian Historical Museum in Moscow, which was the old name for the museum researched in this thesis, the SHM.
To conclude, late 19th century Moscow and, specifically, the Red Square, does seem to be the most appropriate location for a museum of national history. Its ties to the events that led to the formation of the Russian state and deep religiosity and traditional lifestyle of the citizens make such a choice quite reasonable. Some of the collections of the future SHM would be similar to the items that the citizens were used to, such as weapons and jewellery. However, it would seem that some of the assumptions the founders of the SHM made about the local people were not entirely correct. Firstly, a high level of illiteracy meant that inviting the public to the museum with the intention for them to enjoy the experience would have to be through face-to-face, oral activities, and the staff would have to speak the language of the people, which in case of the highly educated founders was doubtful. Secondly, the group whose history would be the core of the permanent exhibition, the peasants, would be the least probable visitors because of the constraints of their lifestyle in terms of their workload, finances, and cultural habits. Thirdly, the founders’ plan was to cover at least some of their expenses through public donations, whereas it was not common practice for Moscow museums of the time to charge visitors in any way.
Designing the SHM
The preparatory stage began after the Polytechnic Exhibition, and A. Zelenoy and N. Chepelevsky were assigned to run the project. In order to provide a strong historical background, other academics, archaeologists, and historians were also invited to join the project. Despite popular opinion, one of the most prominent historians of the time, Sergey Solovyov, the author of the incredibly comprehensive History of Russia from the Earliest Times, was not among them.
268 V. P. Grickevich, Istorija muzejnogo dela konca XVIII - nachala XX vv., p. 152.
113 In January and February 1873, a local newspaper “Golos” (Rus. “Голос” – “Voice”) published two articles on the future museum. The articles were not signed, however, there is an opinion, based on linguistic analysis, that the author was N. Bestujev-Rumin, but it is still not clear who provided him with the data and, possibly, sponsored the articles. Among the possible contributors to the article, one could name Ivan Zabelin and Alexey Uvarov. Both articles can be characterised as a type of PR campaign, an “introduction” of the museum to the public, as the author emphasizes the importance of museums in general and the growing need for a historical museum for the contemporary Russian society. The articles do not contain any information regarding the spatial organisation and the appearance of the museum.269
The concept of the future museum at this stage was in the process of formulation. In 1873, Uvarov wrote a statement text describing possible content and a prototype of the exhibition layout. While working on it, Uvarov received a letter from Nikolay Chepelevsky, who asked him to emphasize the need of the Russian people to have such a museum. Chepelevsky’s vision of the historical museum was of a place where Russian history would be visualised with the help of not only original objects, but also with interior decoration, such as wall and ceiling frescoes, and the content of the exhibition had to include biographies of prominent citizens.
Uvarov himself expressed similar views: he talked about a Russian museum where “paintings, statues are stored alongside with the wall frescoes depicting scenes from Russian history”.270 The SHM was going to be divided into eight departments, each given a certain area and dedicated to a particular historical period: from the pre- Christian times until the reign of Alexander II. The first department, dedicated to early Christianity, aimed at showing the roots and traditions which became the basis for the Russian Orthodox church.271
During the summer of 1874, the committee met regularly in order to discuss the donated site on the Red Square, the first architectural drafts, and the inner structure of the future building. By this time, the architectural ensemble of the Red Square had already been
269 Avram Moiseevich Razgon, ‘Rossijskij Istoricheskij muzej. istorija ego osnovanija i dejatel'nosti (1872-1917 gg.)’, pp. 239-241. 270 I. E. Zabelin, Dnevniki. Zapisnye knizhki, p. 102 271 SHM, Department of Written Sources, fond 440, folder 276, folios 193-194
114 formed, despite some minor changes from time to time, thus placing enormous pressure on the future architect before the drafting even began. Another issue was the construction site, which had not been cleared by the Government, and the museum staff were expected to demolish the buildings located there. These buildings had been constructed under the reign of Peter the Great, the person whose achievements were commemorated at the Polytechnic Exhibition, which, in turn, was the starting point for the SHM. The committee could not use them as exhibition space because of their size and structure, so in order to show respect to their predecessors, the committee decided to preserve them in drawings and make inventory lists of what was inside before they were demolished.
As for the inner structure of the building, it was actively discussed during one of the meetings that took place in August of 1874. The Committee concentrated on the spatial organisation of the SHM, and the main concern was about the design of the basement and the ground floors which were going to be rented out to commercial companies and private merchants. In order to provide extra space for commercial activities, Anatoly Semenov suggested a design of a roofed passageway in one of the yards, however, the members of the Committee felt that it would cost too much. One of the Committee members was vocally concerned about the amount of time that was spent on commercial issues, as in his opinion it was far from the proclaimed goal of advancing science and education. Interestingly, the roofed passageway design would be used in the last reconstruction of the later 20th century, as one of the very few possible space expansion strategies that did not involve taking up more space on the Red Square or conjoining other buildings.
In August of 1874, the Committee published an Ustav, a document that clearly articulated the museum mission: the SHM had to present the main stages of Russian history in a vivid way, and enlighten the general public regarding it. Museum collections could include original objects, as well as replicas and copies, for instance, historical documents, pieces of art and everyday life, archaeological and religious items.272 As for the exhibition design, a chronological approach was suggested so that
272 SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 2, folios 5.
115 each of the museum halls would tell a story about a certain period of Russian history.273 As can be seen from the minutes of the meetings that took place during the summer, the Committee did not pay particular attention to the spaces that could be used for storage and research. A possible explanation for this might be the fact that none of the members had previous experience in building a museum, only an exhibition pavilion in the case of Chepelevsky, Zelenoy, Uvarov and Semenov. Even though the mission statement included collecting as one of the main activities, the Committee did not have a clear understanding of what might have been required to fulfil the aforementioned function. It seems possible that since the SHM collection was quite small in the period in question, the Committee did not consider or plan for its possible growth.
Vladimir Sherwood attended most of the meetings, but his involvement in the design and construction of the SHM building was always limited by the Committee. Due to the disagreements discussed earlier, the Committee had to reject their initial idea of choosing Sherwood and launch an architectural competition, which lasted for five months, from November of 1874 until April of 1875; however, there were just two months for the participants to submit their projects.274 Among other architects, Sherwood and Semenov participated in the competition (fig. 5). There are two versions of the requirements that the future building had to meet available at the museum archive, both published in November of 1874 with a two-week gap between. Both documents are quite similar, except for one item: the first version contains information regarding those architectural monuments the architects could use as an inspiration, such as the cathedrals of Rostov and Yaroslavl.275 In the second version, the same information is provided rather briefly, and it is said that the museum’s facade “should look like monuments built in the 16th century and those built in the 17th century that contain features of the 16th century buildings”. Architects were asked to present suggestions that would be possible to construct in under four years.276
From the very beginning, the SHM was designed as a multi-functional space; the museum building was required to contain four main zones: exhibition halls, a library, a
273 I. Klushkina, S. Sidorova, Materialu k “Letopisi Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo Muzeya”. 274 Avram Moiseevich Razgon, ‘Rossijskij Istoricheskij muzej. istorija ego osnovanija i dejatel'nosti (1872-1917 gg.)’. 275 SHM, Department of Written Sources, fond 440, fol. 276, sheet 45 276 Ibid., sheet 47
116 lecture hall, and areas that could be rented out to commercial organisations. It was also required to include an area for inspecting and logging incoming items, offices (including the director’s), a sculpture workshop, a drawing room, flats for staff members, and storage areas for non-collection items, such as firewood.
There is one feature that should be discussed in more detail. There was no place designated for storage or research, which would appear to be unusual to a modern museum worker, however, it is a situation that was quite widespread at the time: most of the museums established in the 19th century found themselves in need of extra space and facilities quite soon after their opening ceremonies, such as the National Gallery in London.277 It should also be mentioned that by the second half of the 19th century, the discipline known today as museology was in its early development stages, and there were no guidelines or instructions on how to build a museum. In the case of the SHM, the members of the Committee did not have any previous experience with museums and possibly because of that did not foresee those functions that would evolve in the near future. Moreover, in 1874, when the designing process began, the SHM had only several members of staff and just a few dozen objects in its collections, and from the very beginning financial support was quite irregular, therefore there was no way of knowing how many objects would need to be exhibited or stored.
According to the original project, the permanent exhibition was intended to contain approximately 30 thousand objects, making for approximately 750 in each of the halls, of which there had to be 40. In the 2000s, the museum’s permanent layout exhibited 20,227 objects, which demonstrates that either the committee as right in their predictions, or was a result of creating a limiting space it could host no more.
Even though the competition did not require interior design, Sherwood also developed a special look for each of the museum halls. By using interior elements typical for certain periods of Russian history, Sherwood aimed at re-creating the atmosphere and the aura of the past. These elements included windows and doorways, wall and ceiling decorations, frescoes, and architectural replicas. Thus, for instance, one of the halls dedicated to the role of Vladimir City in the Russian history was decorated with replicas
277 Christopher Whitehead, The Public Art Museum in Nineteenth Century Britain.
117 of architectural elements of both secular and religious buildings which were typical for Russian cities in the 12th-13th centuries.278
There is no detailed information regarding the other projects submitted to the competition, so this section focuses only on the winning bid, Sherwood’s Homeland. There is a possibility to gain access to his thinking process as Sherwood provided the judges with a brochure that gave a sense of the spatial organisation of the future museum. The actual building looked very like the blueprints, except the interiors, which were completed without Sherwood, and some other minor elements which will be discussed later.
The inner structure of the SHM proposed by Sherwood was based on his understanding of the role of Orthodox Christianity in Russian history. The order of the halls and their decoration, as well as the way visitors would explore them, had a certain goal: to make people feel the importance of this religion and its role in the formation of Russia as a state. According to the plan, there had to be two exhibition floors, each of those comprised of 22 halls.279 In other words, the exhibition layout was pre-planned and “programmed” into the structure of the building. The narrative designed by Sherwood started in those times when Christianity was a new religion to Ancient Rus. The very first hall the visitors saw upon entering the museum was Seni,280 a hall that was supposed to be decorated with statues depicting Andrew the Apostle preaching to the members of different nations that inhabited the lands of the future Russia (fig. 6).
There were two possible exhibition routes from the Seni: one leading to the Byzantine hall, and the other one to the five halls dedicated to prehistoric, pagan in Sherwood’s terms, times. According to the plan, the visitors could actually see the dome of the Byzantine hall from the Seni through the entrance, just behind the statue of Andrew. The goal of the Byzantine halls (Sherwood planned three of them) was to commemorate the impact that Byzantine culture and traditions had on Ancient Rus. Sherwood intended to reconstruct the dome of the Hagia Sophia of Constantinople (fig. 7) and decorate this
278 I. Klushkina, Istorija jekspozicii GIM [History of the exposition of the SHM], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive. 279 Soprovoditel'naja zapiska k proektu Otechestvo [Accompanying note to the draft Homeland], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 17, folios 3-6, 39-42. 280 Сени (seni) - the entrance zone in a traditional Russian house
118 space with frescoes copied from early Christian churches of Ravenna. Some of his ideas were implemented in the 1880s by another group of architects and artists (fig. 8).
As for the pagan halls, they were supposed to demonstrate archaeological collections, and the exhibited items had to inspire the interior decoration. The pagan halls were supposed to lead the visitor to the two Kiev halls, aimed at showing the role of Kiev in bringing Christianity to Ancient Rus (fig. 9), and those would eventually be linked to the Byzantine halls in order to visualize the connection between those cultures.
The next historical period to be covered was feudal fragmentation. In order to symbolize the complex structure of Russian lands during the period, Sherwood proposed to install two doors from the second Kiev hall to the Moscow hall instead of one. As they proceeded with the tour, the visitors could experience how these lands came together, since it was the dukes of Moscow who joined them. The exhibition layout of the first floor ended with the late 17th century. The second floor would be dedicated to the Romanov dynasty, and there are no details on how space of those halls would have been organized. It is unclear why there was no design provided for these areas, however, there are several possible explanations, ranging from creative (personal disinterest to the Romanov’s European tastes) to administrative, (pressure, time-sensitivity, disagreements). It is also possible that Sherwood, because of his close ties to the Committee, was aware of the financial constraints of the project and, therefore, the possibility that the museum would be opened with only the early history halls completed, as was, in fact, the case.
By introducing various Orthodox symbols as well as certain spatial structures which visualised the story of bringing Christianity to Russia, Sherwood developed the project that showed his understanding of the mission the arts had to play. The mission could be described as (religious) education. There were a number of issues for which the Committee criticised Sherwood’s project. For instance, the exterior design was viewed as containing too many gothic elements, such as towers, which did not have any connections to the inner structure of the building. However, at the same time, the project also received some positive feedback on the holistic approach to the Russian style. The Committee predominantly paid attention to the facades, not to the spatial structure or the functions that the SHM had to perform.
119
The Committee did not support any of the interior decoration solutions suggested by Sherwood: they were rejected on the basis of being too theatrical and, therefore, overshadowing the original objects. The layout was found suitable; following the recommendations of the Committee, Sherwood and Semenov changed the look of the facades. In August 1875, after the tsar approved the project, construction began.
Construction Stage
On August 20th, 1875, the construction began (fig. 10). The analysis of local press implies that people who passed by or visited the construction site did not really understand which kind of building was to be erected: a new building for the City Duma, the Polytechnic Museum,281 or something else.282
In 1879, the tensions between the founders and Sherwood resurfaced, and he was forced to leave the project. By this time, due to a lack of funding, the construction almost stopped. Here is the extract from the local newspaper that described the unfinished building in early 1881: ‘For the last three years this building has been surrounded by scaffolding, its windows and doors nailed up, a couple shops operating from the basement, selling coloured woodcuts and books of Nikolskoy publishing house, and old ironware.’283
Similarly to the SHM, the Polytechnic was given a piece of land in a prime location, although less so: on the Lubyanka Square, approximately one kilometre away from the Red Square. The Polytechnic Committee decided to rent a building in order to open the museum to the public before the actual museum building would be completed. According to the reports available, this decision stemmed from at least two goals: to publicise the collections and educate the people, and what is even more important, to test particular organisational solutions before implementing them into a permanent museum building. Firstly, the staff experimented with different systems of admission
281 The Polytechnic museum was being constructed during the same year, approximately one kilometre away from the SHM. 282 Moskovskir zametki [Moscow notes], Golos (newspaper), August 26th, 1875. 283Nedelya stroitelya [Builder’s week], № 31, 1881, p. 237.
120 fees, and they gave a number of public talks to see how visitors would react to them. Secondly the Polytechnic committee discussed, although in the end did not implement, the model of using more than one building, inspired by the fact that they were initially renting pavilions, as it was easier to manage and present the exhibitions in smaller diverse locations.284
Even though both committees worked on very similar projects, and, moreover, were in physical proximity to each other, there is no evidence that there was any collaboration. Although there are several letters written by Bogdanov and Zabelin in which they discussed the recent archaeological excavations, there is nothing in them about their respective museums. What is even more important is the fact that the Polytechnic Museum committee published their annual reports, so each of them was, theoretically, available to the public, or at least to academics like Uvarov and Zabelin. These reports contained valuable information about foreign museums that were visited by the Polytechnic Museum architects, as well as discussions on strategic development and financial tools that could be used to generate funds, a field with which museums traditionally struggle.
The seed capital for both SHM and the Polytechnic Museum came from outside sources. The Polytechnic was supported by the Government, which provided it with 500 thousand rubles, whereas the SHM received 154 thousand rubles in the form of private donations. Since the SHM minutes of meetings of the 1870s are quite unstructured, it is hard to understand the system and sources of funding and spending of the first years of its existence; there is also a lack of information on whether or not there was any internal fiscal control. From the documents, available it seems that the SHM committee was in constant search of income sources, however, most of the attempts were unsuccessful. For instance, the Committee discussed the way some of the halls on the ground floor
284 A.P. Bogdanov, Mnenie nepremennogo chlena komiteta professora A.P. Bogdanova o vybore mesta dlja Postojannogo Politehnicheskogo muzeja, 24 janvarja 1873 goda [The opinion of Professor A.P. Bogdanov, an indispensable member of the Committee, on choosing a site for a permanent Museum, 24 January 1873 year], Izvestija imperatorskogo obshhestva ljubitelej estestvoznanija, antropologii i jetnografii, tom 15. Moskovskij muzej prikladnyh znanij. Materialy, kasajushhiesja ustrojstva muzeja, rechi, proiznesennye pri ego otkrytii 30-go nojabrja 1872 goda, otchet vysochajshe uchrezhdennogo komiteta muzeja za pervyj god ego sushhestvovanija po 30 nojabrja 1873 goda. Pod redakciej sekretarja Komiteta N.K. Zengera (Moscow: Tipografija Gracheva i K. u Prechistenskih vorot, dom Shilovoj. 1874), pp. 77-84.
121 could be rented by commercial companies; however, as it can be seen from the forthcoming reports, this project failed.
In case of the Polytechnic committee, they found a model that would later on prove its efficiency: an individual or a company could invest in construction in exchange for renting a certain amount of spaces for a long period of time. By using this model, two extensions were added to the central Polytechnic Museum’s building in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It should be also stressed here that the Polytechnic committee initiated the creation of a fiscal control department, which was responsible for supervising the revenues and spending; the department reported at almost every annual museum committee meeting.
Despite the dissimilarity in their fiscal approach, both committees found themselves in need of Governmental financial support and sought the ministry of finance with different results. Whereas the Polytechnic Museum was provided with a fixed annual budget which would cover three-quarters of its spending, the SHM did not receive any support for quite a long period of time, for nearly eight years after construction began.
The State Russian Historical Archive in Saint Petersburg preserves a number of documents which help us to reconstruct the relationship between the SHM and the ministry of finance. In order to acquire funding, the SHM committee mortgaged a piece of land on the Red Square, thus making construction possible. It received money from one of Moscow’s credit organisations, and when the time came to pay the interest, the committee was not able to do so. Correspondence between Chepelevsky and the minister of finance shows that the rejection of financial support was the result of the lack of preliminary research and planning. In May 1881,285 the Ministry agreed to absorb the debt of the museum in exchange for ownership of the land and the building.
In the end, the Government provided the SHM with additional funding to cover the construction costs, however, it was not only because the Committee members tried to comply with the Ministry’s instructions, but possibly because of the historical events that soon took place. In March 1881 Alexander II, the founder of the museum, was
285 I. Klushkina, S. Sidorova, Materialu k “Letopisi Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo Muzeya”.
122 killed by terrorists, and his successor, Alexander III, was crowned in Moscow, in the Uspensky Cathedral of the Kremlin, as tradition required. Having a building covered in scaffolding next to the tsar in every newspaper picture next was not considered acceptable. Moreover, Uvarov made sure that a museum visit by the new emperor would be included in the proceedings. The coronation was to take place in May 1883, and by this time the SHM committee had to complete the facades, as well as some of the halls, so that the tsar could visit and officially open the museum.
The ministry of finance agreed to provide funding in exchange for committee reorganisation, and it was Uvarov who now chaired it, not Chepelevsky. Possibly because controlling a cultural facility was not within the remit of the ministry, it transferred all the matters regarding the building to the Ministry of Public Education.
The issues of the founders with planning and controlling spending resurfaced in the process of preparing for the coronation. For instance, the sum that the museum budgeted for additional staff and decoration of the building was four times higher than what was actually spent. It is possible, however, that this was done to acquire more funds from the ministry so that they could be allocated to other needs. From the tone of the correspondence, it can be assumed that the ministry staff was annoyed by such indirect communication.286 It may have been the reason why, when the marble flooring for the Paradnue Seni was not finished on time, the museum was forced to rent fabric to imitate carpeting instead of buying it.
It should be explained that the coronation was not a one-day event: it was a two-week series of proceedings and ceremonies for both the nobility and the common people in various parts of Moscow. The city was decorated and cleaned. The Russian style, as the most popular architectural trend of the time, was highlighted, and the emperor visited not just the SHM, but the newly built and consecrated Christ the Saviour Church. Other activities included, for instance, listening to the opera performance A Life for the Tsar, at the Bolshoi Theatre, or observing a military parade in Preobrazhenskoe village.
286 ‘Ob otpuske 300 000 rublej na stroitel'nye raboty po dostrojke muzeja v Moskve’ [About 300 000 roubles by vacation on completion of construction work on the Museum in Moscow], in SHM, Department of Written Sources, fond 565, inventory 4, folder 15031, folios 29-33.
123 In the late 19th century, some Moscow buildings had already been electrified, and the organizers of the proceedings used electric lights for decoration. Several illuminated symbols, such as the Russian coat of arms, Moscow’s, and a crown and the tsar’s initials appeared on both facades of the SHM building, as well as the other buildings nearby. All of the events of the coronation were sketched and described in a special commemorative book, which, therefore, contains the first image of the actual SHM building to ever be produced. By May 1883, the entrance zone (known as Paradnue Seni) and 11 halls on the first exhibition floor were partly completed.
Even though a few days before the royal visit there was still leftover construction waste, the tsar finally attended the museum accompanied by his wife. There are no particular details about the visit, which lasted approximately one hour; it is known, however, that members of the Committee greeted the tsar, who shared comments regarding the need of further museum development. Description of the museum’s halls can be found in a number of books which documented the coronation events.287 In early June 1883, the museum was officially blessed and finally opened to the general public.
The process of decorating the interiors continued until the Revolution. A number of prominent artists, among them, for instance, Ivan Aivazovsky and Viktor Vasnetsov, were invited to decorate the walls. They both were asked to decorate halls on the first floor. Vasnetsov painted scenes of prehistoric life in Hall 2, whereas Aivazovsky, who was famous for seascapes, depicted the Crimean Kerch strait in Hall B.
As opposed to the SHM committee that decided to build the entire facility at once, the Polytechnic committee divided the construction stage into three periods. Since the funding was limited, they started with the so called central part of the facility, which was completed in three years, and was officially opened in 1876. While the SHM committee primarily focused on the facade and interior decoration, the Polytechnic committee conducted what we can call spatial research, which included the following elements: observing foreign museum buildings, curatorial analysis of spatial needs for the collection care and display, and calculating maintenance costs. Each stage of the
287 V pamjat' svjashhennogo koronovanija gosudarja imperatora Aleksandra III i gosudaryni imperatricy Marii Fedorovny [In memory of the sacred Coronation of the Emperor Alexander III and Empress Empress Maria Fedorovna] (Saint Petersburg, Tipografija V. V. Komarova, 1883), pp. 447-449.
124 project was supervised by members of the construction department, including Semenov, who was later hired by the Polytechnic committee. Since the SHM building was finished in 1883, and its interior decoration still had yet to be completed, the construction department mainly focused on the everyday maintenance and also infrastructure systems repairs, including ventilation and heating, whereas the decoration was supervised by the academic department.
As it can be seen from the Polytechnic committee reports, the major part of the annual funding was provided by the Government, approximately 25 thousand rubles out of 34 thousand. Every five years the committee had to provide the Government with a detailed report that was necessary to secure the next round of funding. Since the Government kept providing the Polytechnic Museum with funds up until the revolution of 1917, it meant that these reports were thorough enough to prove the efficiency of the organisation. As for the other sources of revenue, they included private donations, tickets, and rental income. The SHM, being a part of the Ministry of Public Education, was also provided with Governmental funding, however, from the sources available there is no evidence that the SHM reports to the ministry were as detailed and comprehensive as the Polytechnic ones.
In the absence of other possible measurable criteria, attendance rate seems to be the most accurate source when discussing museum efficiency. The SHM started collecting data in 1886, three years after their opening, whereas the Polytechnic kept records from the very beginning, even while the museum was operating from of a rented facility. We can see that at the Polytechnic attendance increased dramatically (from 10 thousand annually to 100 thousand) when it moved to its own building288; as for the SHM, the attendance numbers fluctuated between approximately 30 thousand289 and 70 thousand a year.290
288 Muzej prikladnyh znanij v Moskve. Otchety o dejatel'nosti muzeja i ego otdelov za 1905 god [Museum of applied science in Moscow. Reports on the activities of the Museum and its divisions for the year 1905] (Moscow: Tipo-litografija “Russkogo T-va pechatnogo i izdatel'skogo dela”, 1906), p. 101. 289 For instance, Otchet muzeja o rabote za 1890 god [Report on the work of the Museum for the year 1890], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 47, folio 58. 290 Otchet muzeja o rabote za 1895 god i prilozhenie k nemu (rukopis') [Report on the work of the Museum for the year 1895 and its annex (manuscript)], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 70, folio 41.
125 In 1910, nearly 40 years after both museums had been founded, they started to function as planned, with some exceptions: the second floor at the SHM was not ready for the permanent exhibition, but since all the infrastructure was there, it was decided to rent it out for commercial projects, mainly for displaying pieces of modern Russian art. All three parts of the Polytechnic Museum were fully completed, and since public talks were popular among Moscow citizens, they decided to build a new large lecture hall, which shortly became one of the most recognizable public places in Moscow of the time, whereas the SHM came to the conclusion that they did not need theirs, so they dismantled it to make space for a public reading room and extra storage.
The Polytechnic had a general development plan, which included ways of how to build extensions in case they need them, and they also had a clear financial plan ranging as far as the 1940s. The SHM committee found that the building could not perform museum functions properly, mainly because there was no space for ever growing collections, and the only possible way for them to develop was to obtain or build new facilities in close proximity to the existing ones. They approached the Moscow City Duma, asking them to donate their newly finished building, which was connected to the SHM by the Voskresensky gate. The Duma initially gave a formal positive response, however, due to the tumultuous nature of the time filled with such events as World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution, the city soon had other priorities, and the plan was not realized.
Summary
The formative years are highly important for any museum and require special skills from those in charge, and it is possible that some of those skills are different from what is needed when a museum is already running. Modern museum workers have the advantage of extensive research, professional education, and open channels of communication between colleagues, most of which were not available during the historical period in question, and therefore, any discussion of the SHM foundation and first years of operation needs to be contextualised.
One of the earliest findings of the chapter was that, in the absence of established museological practices and management theories, there may be a factor that has equal or stronger effect on the formation of the museum as an institution and as a space – the
126 human factor. Some of the most important decisions made at these stages, such as voicing the initiative, formulating the mission, and choosing priorities in designing and running the future facility were made by individuals who appeared to have insufficient communication skills when it came to negotiating with each other and those outside the founders’ committee, such as fellow professionals or the ministry of finance and other Governmental bodies. It is especially apparent while exploring their tumultuous relationship with the architect, Vladimir Sherwood. Apart from miscommunication, other people-related issues may have created obstacles in the formation process. For instance, one of the directors, Ivan Zabelin, admitted his disinterest towards administrative work, but continued to fulfil his duties for 25 years without recusing himself. Unilateral or semi-unilateral incoherent decisions stemming, possibly, from lack of self-awareness as people and as an organisation (or acting upon this self- awareness), have since then solidified both physically and institutionally. The limitations of the physical structure and the lack of a well-formulated mission are some of the issues the museum has been struggling with until the present day.
The Polytechnic management model can be described as ‘doing by learning from others’, while the SHM one can be characterised as ‘doing by ourselves’. The Polytechnic observed the work of other museums, experimented (for instance, with renting and attendance fees), and focused on financial matters, such as building a multi- sourced funding system and planning ahead, and reflected on the results of every major decision. The SHM committee focused on style matters, without paying any significant attention to the managerial and funding issues, which resulted in low attendance rates, funding cuts from the Government, all leading to the conclusion that the newly constructed building was not suitable for performing museum functions.
To conclude, in this particular historical context, in order to function properly, museums of such a scale had to be provided with Governmental support, and in order to receive it, the museum administration had to prove that they had a clear vision of how to manage the resources available, including the buildings. Perhaps this experience is transferable, and although in modern circumstances it does not necessarily have to be Governmental support, private donors also need to have trust in the institution’s management.
127 Chapter 5: The Renovation of 1937: Re-evaluating the Quality and Ethics
Chapter 5 covers the history of the SHM during the period between 1917, when the Russian Empire became a Soviet state, and 1937, when the country was celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Revolution. The reason for choosing this particular period is the fact that one of the two major spatial transformations in entire history of the SHM took place in 1936-1937.
This chapter is particularly concerned with the renovation of the Museum in 1936-7. During this time, the interiors of nine halls (13-21) on the first floor underwent transformations, as did the exterior of the building. Initiated by the Government, the renovation was aimed at preparing the SHM for the 20th anniversary of the Revolution of 1917 by upgrading both the design and the content of the Museum, and aligning it more fully with the state guidelines on how to represent history. As a result of the renovation, some of the interiors on the first floor were renovated, whereas others were changed significantly, by either replacing the previous decoration completely, or designing an entirely new look in halls not completed before the Revolution.
The construction of the SHM was first analysed as early as the 1920s by Malitzky,291 and then again in the 1960s by Razgon,292 whereas the period in question was brought into academic discourse quite recently. In the late 1980s, Natalia Datieva, an art and architecture historian was hired to examine the condition of the interiors on the first floor prior to their restoration. Datieva analysed the SHM interiors from an art history perspective, focusing mainly on visual changes, rather than the reasons which led to these changes.293 Despite a rather biased interpretation of the changes, her work provides the current research with detailed characteristics of each of the interiors of the first floor.
291 Malickij G.A. Rossijskij istoricheskij muzej v nastojashhem i proshlom [Maliczkij G.A. The present and the past of the Russian historical Museum], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, fond 416, item 8а, folios 1- 29 292 Avram Moiseevich Razgon, ‘Rossijskij Istoricheskij muzej. istorija ego osnovanija i dejatel'nosti (1872-1917 gg.)’. 293 N.S. Datieva, Istoricheskaja zapiska [Historical note], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive (November 1989).
128 Following Datieva’s research, or the general 1990s trend, the current SHM administration294 continues to insist on the 1937 changes being meaningless destruction that had no valid grounds other than political propaganda of communist ideology. The goal of this chapter is to bring another perspective to the events in question, thus enhancing our understanding of this phase of development at the SHM. By looking closely at the context in which changes were made, as well as at the decision-making process behind these spatial transformations, it is possible to add new levels of interpretation.
The chapter is divided into three parts. The first one is devoted to the multiple cultural policies in the newly established Soviet state and their impact on museums. The second part is dedicated to Moscow as the urban context and its influence on the SHM transformations – particularly the exterior changes. The third part analyses the details of the SHM transformations, taking into account the often-overlooked factor of the Pushkin exhibition, which took place at the SHM at the same time as the renovation in question, and its dramatic impact on the SHM spatial structure.
The SHM and Early Soviet Cultural Policies
Despite the vigorous military action that had absorbed the whole country in the late 1910s, the Bolshevik Government immediately started carrying out a wide range of reforms. Vladimir Lenin initiated a number of reforms to reorganise the museum sector.295 A major part of the reform package concerned nationalisation of private property, during which the concept of private property was practically destroyed.296 Palaces and houses of nobility, private collections, church buildings and religious items, as well as museums, were made property of the people and the Government. The first building to be nationalised was the Winter Palace in Petrograd (St Petersburg). In October 1917 it became a state museum; a special committee comprised of art historians was formed to take care of the palace and its rich collections.297 In the case of Moscow, the first museum to be nationalised was the Tretyakov Gallery, which was proclaimed to
294 Aleksej Levykin, ‘Kazhdaja Jepoha Tait Poddelki’ [Every epoch carries a forgery] (interviewed by Anna Sabova), Kommersant.ru (29 February 2016).
129 be state-owned in 1918.298 Some of the private collectors, whose property was seized, collaborated with the authorities and were, therefore, able to play an active role in the life of their museums (or, more accurately, museums founded by the Soviet Government based on their collections). For instance, A.A. Bakhrushin, the founder of the Theatre Museum in Moscow (1894), in 1919 became its lifelong director.299
By 1917, when the Revolution began, the SHM had found itself in quite an unstable situation. The staff had not begun decorating the halls on the second floor. There was a constant need for extra space to store collections, increasingly more since Sсhukin donated the contents of his museum to the SHM in 1905.300 The museum was significantly understaffed, especially when it came to research and educational functions.301
The SHM was also nationalised, and in 1917-1919 one of its functions, besides research and education,302 was providing storage for applied art collections transported from former private palaces and mansions.303 Thus, for instance, in September 1917, during one of the managerial meetings, the museum director Nikolay Sherbatov suggested closing the museum since its exhibition halls were occupied with cases with numerous artefacts, and special measures to protect them were required; his colleagues did not support him, and the museum continued to function, however, with certain limitations.304
298 Ibid., p. 9, 11. 299 M. Kaulen et al. (eds.), Muzejnoe delo Rossii [Museum work in Russia], p. 132 300 Generaly rossijskogo mecenatstva: Petr Ivanovich Shhukin [Russian generals of patronage: Petr Ivanovich Shchukin], online video recording, Mediaportal of the SHM, 2 October 2015
130
At the same time, the inner reorganisation of the SHM began;305 it was initiated by the People's Commissariat for Education – a newly established Governmental body responsible for cultural policy, educational standards, and propaganda.306 The goal of the reorganisation was to define the mission of the SHM in a new political environment as well as design an ideal structure for its ever-growing collection and exhibition departments.
Originally the main mission of the SHM was illustrating Russian history, from ancient times until the reign of Emperor Alexander II. In 1921, a reorganisation committee comprised of the SHM members of staff was established; it was chaired by Mikhail Pokrovsky, a prominent Soviet historian and Vice-minister of Public Education.307 The committee proposed the following changes: introducing research as one of the main functions and defining the SHM as the historical museum of domestic life and culture. Research function would include: further acquisition of artefacts; proper storage, critical analysis of the objects and preparation of their scientific description, restoration, and cataloguing.308 The objects to be collected and displayed were, therefore, items from residential buildings, such as clothes, homeware, jewellery, and furniture.309 According to the proposal, the SHM was to be divided into six departments, five of which were content-based (research, exhibition planning, storage, library and sources), whereas the sixth was dedicated to the maintenance of the aforementioned functions, as well as education and special events, such as public lectures, both at the museum and outside. The proposal was approved by the People's Commissariat for Education, and the reorganisation began in December 1921.
In 1925, the new organisational charter was enforced; it did not cause any particular changes, except the introduction of the museum’s title that has been used ever since: the
305 Anna Borisovna Zaks, ‘Iz istorii Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo muzeja (1917-1941 gg.)’, p. 303. 306 Glava I Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie kul'turnym stroitel'stvom. 1917 g. – 1935 g. [Chapter 1. State management of cultural construction. 1917-1935], Official website of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation,
131 State Historical Museum.310 During the second half of the 1920s, the SHM staff was mainly focused on research expeditions and themed displays exhibited on the second floor.311 The decoration of the halls on the second exhibition floor had not been completed by the time of the Revolution and the situation remained the same during the period in question. Museum staff provided 4625 guided tours in 1927-1929, which was much more than, for instance, the 411 guided tours in 1912.312 Most of the visitors were Moscow citizens and local school groups.313
Museum Network
In October of 1917, the Government introduced compulsory registration of all monuments, museums and museum objects, as well as private collections and antique shops. Since all Soviet museums were declared state property, the state and various Governmental bodies were now responsible for their funding.314 For the next seven decades, museum staff would not have to concern themselves with maintenance and operation costs. Whilst this removed the basic challenge of ensuring funding was in place, at the same time, such a funding structure made museums highly dependent on, and vulnerable to, fluctuations in the economic and political climate. The newly established centralized museum network was divided into three groups according to the level of authority which ran them: all-soviet (federal, the most important one), republic, and municipal.315
310 Before 1917 it was entitled “Museum named after His Imperial Highness Sovereign Heir Tsesarevich”, 1917 - 1925 The State Russian Historical museum, since 1925 - the State Historical museum. 311 Anna Borisovna Zaks, ‘Iz istorii Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo muzeja (1917-1941 gg.)’, p. 331- 341 312 Statisticheskie tablicy jekskursij Muzeja (1883 – 1928) [Statistical tables of guided tours of the Museum between 1883 and 1928], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 2, file 34, folio 1. 313 Tablicy poseshhaemosti jekskursij za 1927-1929 gg. [Attendance tables excursions 1927-1929], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 364, folio 1. 314 Grickevich, V. P., Istorija muzejnogo dela v novejshij period (1918–2000), p. 9 315 Galkina, P. I., ed., Osnovy sovetskogo muzeevedenija [Soviet Museology Basics] (Moscow: Goskul'tprosvetizdat, 1955).
132 The effect of these measures became one of the topics for discussion at the first National Museum conference that took place in Petrograd on February 11-17 of 1919,316 a follow-up to the preliminary pre-Revolution 1912 congress. The conference, initiated by the museum community and supported by authorised bodies responsible for culture policy,317 can be viewed as an example of productive communication between museum workers and the Government.
Conference participants stated that museums had to perform the following functions: enlightenment, research, and objects preservation; collections had to be divided into two parts, one to be showcased for the general public, and one to be stored and available for researchers. As for museum facilities, Alexander Miller, the then director of the Russian Museum in Petrograd, suggested that they had to be designed according to museum functions; since nearly every museum facility did not satisfy each museum’s needs, a number of large independent exhibition halls could be established in order to showcase collections from different museums.318 The results of the conference included the establishment of the National Museum Fund, which meant that all the collections were legally assigned to it and could easily be redistributed among museums and physically relocated.319
Museums were assigned a new function: propaganda. They now had to play a significant role in public education, emphasizing the benefits of the newly established political system in every possible way. This required not only designing new exhibitions and changing old layouts and visual aids, but also opening new museums dedicated to political leaders and recent events. During 1918-1923, 250 new museums were opened,320 most of them dedicated to local history and the role of the Revolution. By the mid-1930s, a framework for local history museums was established: three departments covering the topics of nature, history of the area, and socialism.321 In December 1930, at
316 Doklad predstavitelej Muzeja o muzejnoj konferencii, sostojavshejsja 9–20 fevralja 1919 g. v g. Petrograde [Report of the representatives of the Museum at a Museum Conference held on 9-20 February 1919, Petrograd], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 155. 317 M. Kaulen et al. (eds.), Muzejnoe delo Rossii [Museum work in Russia], p. 132-133. 318 Muzeevedcheskaja mysl' v Rossii XVIII - XX vekov, p. 464-477 319 V. P. Grickevich, Istorija muzejnogo dela v novejshij period (1918–2000), p. 13; M. Kaulen et al. (eds.), Muzejnoe delo Rossii [Museum work in Russia], pp.132-134. 320 V. K. Gardanov, Muzejnoe stroitel'stvo i ohrana pamjatnikov kul'tury v pervye gody Sovetskoj vlasti [Museum construction and protection of monuments of culture in the early years of Soviet power (1917- 1920)] (1917-1920) in Istorija muzejnogo dela v SSSR. Trudy NII muzeevedenija, vol 1, 1957, p. 29. 321 Kaulen, M et al., Muzejnoe delo Rossii [Museum work in Russia], p. 149
133 the First National Museum Congress322, it was additionally and specifically stressed that exhibition design had to represent the Marxist view of communism as the climax of human evolution.323
The Revolution and the Civil War left the economy of the country in ruins and the state was in grave need of financial means. As one of the possible solutions to the problem, the Government issued a special edict aimed at assessing available valuable museum items and selling them abroad. The museum that suffered the most significant damage was the Hermitage, which lost such artefacts as Titian’s Venus with a Mirror and The Annunciation by Jan van Eyck from its collection.324 These sales, however, did not affect the sector dramatically, as it was still developing.325
Theorising Museum Work
Despite the fact that, in the early 1920s, Russia was in a state of political and economic crisis, the processes of museum development did not halt, driven by the new Government’s belief in their value as an educational and propaganda tool. Moreover, looking back at the 1920s from today’s perspective, we can see that it was a very prosperous period for the museum sector. The number of museums was constantly growing, and it was the time when museology started forming as a scientific discipline. After the 1930s Museum Congress museum studies was now officially recognized as a scientific discipline and the community received the opportunity to publish an academic journal called The Soviet Museum, the tribune of the new ideology.326
One of the museologists who contributed to the development of the discipline was Fedor Shmit, whose book Museum Work: on Exhibitions was published in 1929 and became one of the first works to discuss both the history of museums dating back to Ancient Greece and the role of museums in Soviet society, being one of the first attempts to theorise different types of museums according to the functions they
322 the last major intermuseum conference in the USSR 323 Pervyj Vserossiyskiy Muzeinuy Siezd. Dekabr’ 1930. Tezisy dokladov [The First All-Russian Congress of Museum Workers. December 1930. Proceedings] (Leningrad: LOOSRP. Muzeynaya Komissiaya, 1930). 324 Grickevich, V. P., Istorija muzejnogo dela v novejshij period (1918–2000), p .12. 325 Ibid., p. 13. 326 Ibid., pp. 18-19; Sovetskij muzej, 1 (1931).
134 perform.327 Another important work of the period was the article Principles of Museum Construction, produced in 1920 by Nikolay Mashkovetz, an art historian at the Tretyakov gallery. The article discusses roles of museums within the network, ranging from the local to the national.328 A significant number of works published in the 1920s were dedicated to museum audiences (Rozental), especially children. For instance, Alexander Zelenko, an architect and a teacher, in his article Children’s Museums, summarizes the US and European experiences in the field, and also describes the project of a children’s interactive museum. He mainly focuses on the exhibitions and displays that can be interesting for young audiences.329 Some academic work was done at research institutions aimed specifically at museum work and local history research. The most important and prolific of such organisations was the Research Institute of Museum Studies (Moscow),330 formed in 1937 as a result of merging several academic facilities. Soviet museologists mainly focused on museum theory, collections care and exhibition design.331
One of the trends that emerged in the 1920s was the need to organize exhibitions and public lectures on contemporary issues.332 One of the authors of the Soviet Museum magazine suggested introducing a new genre called a newspaper exhibition which would cover the most vital news items.333 It would use collections of the museum, accompanied by modern written comments and diagrams that had to be created by members of staff, thus adding research on contemporary issues to their daily functions. The exhibitions of this kind were hosted at the SHM in the Entrance Zone, the former Paradnue Seni. For instance, in 1930, the SHM prepared and hosted three exhibitions dedicated to the Soviet working class, wheat crops and bread making, and the five-year
327 Fedor Ivanovich Shmit, Muzejnoe delo. Voprosy jekspozicii. 328 N. Mashkovets, ‘Principy muzejnogo stroitel'stva’ [Principles of museum construction], in Muzeevedcheskaja mysl' v Rossii XVIII - XX vekov: sbornik dokumentov i materialov [Museological ideas in Russia in the XVIII-XX centuries. The collection of documents and materials], ed. by Je. A. Shulepova. (Moscow: Jeterna, 2010), pp. 470-498. 329 A. Zelenko, “Detskie muzei” [Children’s Museum], in Muzeevedcheskaja mysl' v Rossii XVIII - XX vekov: sbornik dokumentov i materialov [Museological ideas in Russia in the XVIII-XX centuries. The collection of documents and materials], ed. by Je. A. Shulepova. (Moscow: Jeterna, 2010), pp. 580-586. 330 Anna Zaks, Jeta dolgaja, dolgaja zhizn: 1933-1963, p. 244. 331 P. I. Galkina, ed., Osnovy sovetskogo muzeevedenija. 332 V.K. Gardanov, Muzejnoe stroitel'stvo i ohrana pamjatnikov kul'tury v pervye gody Sovetskoj vlasti (1917-1920) [Museum establishment and monument preservation in the first years of the USSR (1917- 1920)] Trudy nauchno-issledovatel'skogo instituta muzeevedenija. Vol. 1 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo kul'turno-prosvetitel'noj literatury, 1957), pp. 7-36 (p. 31) История музейного дела в СССР, выпуск 1, с. 49 333 V. V. Karpov, Sovetskij muzej, 5 (1931), pp. 89-91
135 industrial plan.334 In addition to such exhibitions, members of staff were also required to give public talks on a variety of topics both inside and outside the museum, for example, at factories and palaces of culture.335
The Orthodox Church
After the Revolution, the role and the status of the Orthodox Church were reconsidered. A 1918 decree proclaimed the separation of Church and state, as well as prohibited any involvement of the Church in education.336 A similar separation was first performed as early as the time of Peter the Great (early 18th century), reducing the impact of religious organisations on the Governmental decision-making process.337 At the same time, however, up until the Revolution, the Church played a crucial role in legitimation of the tsar’s power and the Russian Orthodoxy was the most widespread religion among Russian citizens.
Before the Revolution, church buildings were used not only for religious ceremonies, but also as storage for valuable items. In some cases they functioned as a hybrid institution with elements of museum work, such as storage, research, and exhibition, for instance, as part of schools of theology in Kiev (1872) and Saint Petersburg (1879).338 The aforementioned decree prohibited all religious institutions from forming a legal entity and, therefore, from any kind of ownership rights. All Church property was subjected to nationalization. Based on the hybridization described above, transforming churches into museums would have been the most simple and humane solution, however, most of the Church buildings were repurposed as warehouses, cultural centres,
334 Irina Klushkina, Spisok vremennyh vystavok GIM s 1921 do 2002 g. [A list of temporary exhibitions hosted at the SHM from 1921 to 2002], Unpublished copy stored in a private archive. 335 Anna Borisovna Zaks, ‘Iz istorii Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo muzeja (1917-1941 gg.)’ [On the SHM history (1917-1941 gg.)] Ocherki istorii muzejnogo dela v Rossii, Vol 2 (Moscow: NII muzeevedenija, 1960), p. 303 336 Spisok aktov konstitucionnogo znachenija 1600-1918 gg.: Dekret Soveta Narodnyh Komissarov "Ob otdelenii cerkvi ot gosudarstva i shkoly ot cerkvi" [Lists of acts the constitutional values of 1600-1918: Decree of Council of People's Commissars "On the separation of Church from State and School from Church"], Sajt konstitucii Rossijskoj Federacii [Website of the Constitution of the Russian Federation],
136 administrative buildings, and even swimming pools;339 valuable artefacts (ceremonial items, icons, clothes) were either sold, destroyed, or donated to museums.340
It was the time when so called anti-religion museums were widespread across the USSR: in 1925 there were 25, whereas by 1933 there were 80, including anti-religion departments at museums of local history.341 The Central Anti-Religion Museum was established in Moscow in 1929 on the premises of the former Strastnoy monastery,342 which was demolished later, in 1937, during the renovation of Moscow city centre. The museum was founded by the League of Militant Atheists (1922–1947), a public-run organisation aimed at anti-religion propaganda; one of their methods was establishing museums and exhibitions, mainly in the factories and community centres. Anti-religion exhibitions had to interpret religion through a sociological and economical lens, focusing on the dictatorial role of the Church during the monarchy period in Russian history. As for exhibition design, in order to stop the public from perceiving religious items as bearing a sacred meaning, S. Lebedyansky, the member of staff of the Anti- religion museum in Leningrad (Saint Petersburg), suggested introducing diagrams, slogans, and infographics as a means of interpretation. At the same time, Lebedyansky was also one of a few of his contemporaries that stressed the need to avoid interior decoration for the sake of decoration.343
The Leningrad Anti-Religion Museum, located in the former Kazansky Cathedral, was mainly focused on researching types of religion; collections were comprised of both ethnographic and religious items transferred from the Hermitage, the Russian Museum, and the Kunstkamera. As opposed to the Moscow Anti-Religion Museum, which was
339 Here is a list of church buildings which were converted to other facility types: German Reform Church in Saint Petersburg was reconstructed into the Culture Center for Post Office Workers; Kazan Cathedral in Nerehta was used as a museum and bread-baking complex; Lutheran Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in Saint Petersburg was used as storage and later as a swimming pool; Church of the Epiphany in St Petersburg was used as storage, a vegetable warehouse, and mortuary. 340 V. G. Bondarchuk, Analiz literatury o muzeefikacii rossijskih kul'tovyh zdanij [Analysis of the literature on musialisation of Russian religious buildings], in Muzej v hrame-pamjatnike. Nauchno- prakticheskaja konferencija: Sbornik nauchnyh statej (Saint Petersburg: Gosudarstvennyj muzej- pamjatnik "Isaakievskij sobor", 2005), pp. 31-43
137 closed in the late 1930s, the Leningrad Museum continues functioning, now under the name of the State Museum of the History of Religion.344
During the 1920s, decisions on the preservation or destruction of historical buildings, including former churches and cathedrals, were usually made by the museum department of the People's Commissariat for Education and its local branches; their staff would usually investigate the building in order to decide whether or not it was valuable in terms of architecture and history. If the building was considered valuable, it would be protected by the state; if not, it could be reconstructed so that it could be repurposed or even destroyed.345 City councils also took part in the decision-making-process by creating a strategy for buildings which had been classified as non-important. In the case of Moscow, it was the Moscow Council established in 1917 and one of its departments was responsible for municipal services and facilities.346,347 In 1930, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued a decree establishing all-Soviet and regional bodies that would tackle all religious issues, including opening and closing religious facilities.
St. Basil’s Cathedral was one of the first monuments taken under state protection and restored; it was re-opened to the general public as a museum in 1923, and in 1928 it was converted into an SHM department.348 Despite the fact that the cathedral was located in the very heart of Moscow, near the newly established political centre, based on the evidence available it appears that there had not even been any discussions about the possibility of demolition.349 Tatyana Saracheva, the head of St Basil’s Cathedral
344 M. M. Shahnovich and T. V. Chumakova, Muzej istorii religii Akademii nauk SSSR i rossijskoe religiovedenie (1932-1961) [Museum of the history of religion of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Russian religion studies (1932-1961)] (Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 2014) 345 Anastasija Anatol'evna Pogrebskaja, Ob ispol'zovanii cerkvej Leningrada, zakrytyh v 1930-e gody [On the use of churches of Leningrad, closed in 1930-ies], Trudy Istoricheskogo fakul'teta Sankt- Peterburgskogo universiteta (2010), pp. 317-326. 346 In the late 1920s, when the reconstruction of the city center began, it was headed by Konstantin Ukhanov. Sergej Grigorov, ‘Istorija Mossoveta’ [History of Mossovet], Chto budet s Moskvoj, 7 (07) (2014), p. 7
138 museum in 2016, explains that the building was perceived as a unique architectural monument that had to be preserved. Since it was converted into a museum, it went through regular scheduled restorations.350 Even though the museum had to be involved in the state cultural policy by organizing exhibitions on anti-religion topics, members of staff used this as an official reason to save artefacts and elements of interior decorations, for instance, by displaying quotes from communist party leaders near the icons.
Other Innovations and Policies
Another characteristic of the period between 1917 and the early 1930s is the emergence of a new way of thinking about the role of culture. It was marked by an intensive development of the avant-garde, a new radical movement that criticised traditional forms of art. Some of the artists of the period, such as Kazimir Malevich, questioned the role of a museum in post-revolution Russia. According to Malevich, “the setting up of a contemporary museum is a collection of contemporaries’ projects and nothing more; only those projects which can be adapted to the skeleton of life, or which will lead to the skeleton of new forms of it, can be preserved for a time”.351 New forms of expression appeared not only in fine arts, but also in architecture, where the constructivist movement played the principal role for at least a decade between the early 1920s and the mid-1930s.
The constructivist movement focused on the social role of architecture that, according to Alexey Gan, constructivism theoretician, embodied Communist ideology.352 Constructivist architects identified the functions that a building would perform (housing, public kitchens, baths, Governmental facilities) and designed it accordingly. In terms of aesthetics they were hardly distinguishable from one another to an eye used to rich decorations, as the architects maintained a simple, modest, “clean” look of the exteriors. There are no museums designed by Soviet constructivists, as most cultural functions were assigned to a new facility type called “dom kultury” (Rus. дом культуры – “a house of culture”; similar to a community centre). The aim of these organisations was to provide workers with space for entertainment and education. Some
350 Ibid., p. 58 351 K. Malevich, Essays on art, 1915-1933 (Copenhagen: Borgen, 1968), p. 70. 352 Aleksei Gan, Konstruktivizm [Constructivism] (Tver: Tverskoe izadatelstvo, 1922).
139 houses of culture, such as the Gorky Palace of Culture in Leningrad, were equipped with one or more spaces for permanent or temporary exhibitions, mostly on local history or history of the Revolution.353 A museum in this system of thinking was much closer to an educational or entertainment establishment, making it lose the traditional aura of outstanding value, partly because of the simple design, without excessive embellishment.
To sum up, in the 1920s there was the period of phenomenal growth and relative freedom in all areas of Soviet life, including architecture: new, non-classist, types of buildings appeared and existing buildings were assigned new functions. Even though some of the changes that were introduced were highly politicized and rather radical, especially at the time, it should be noted that because of the scale of Government involvement, and the attempts to create a better organisational structure, museums could take some important steps they had not previously made before the Revolution, such as the formation of a network, the gradual establishment of a professional community, and the early development of museum studies as an academic area.
The 1920s-1930s Moscow as Urban Context
In 1922, Moscow became the capital of the USSR, triggering major changes in the city environment. The city went through significant transformation, both in the city centre, and the residential areas. The most crucial changes occurred in the central part of Moscow, where the city landscape evolved from being a traditional Russian merchant city to the capital of the largest country in the world. Among these were renovations of the squares and construction of Governmental facilities and the underground system.354 The changes were designed and supervised by professional architects, giving rise to the practice of city planning. It should be noted that the architect Andrey Burov, one of the key figures in the SHM reconstruction to be discussed in this chapter, played a major part in these transformations.
353 B. Kirikov and M. Shtiglitz, Arhitektura Leningradskogo Avangarda: Putevoditel [Leningrad Avant- Garde Architecture: A Guide] (Saint Petersburg: Kolo Publishing House, 2008), pp. 94-99. 354 Sovetskaja arhitektura za 50 let [50 years of Soviet architecture], ed. by M. V. Posohin (Moscow: Strojizdat, 1968), pp. 77-79.
140 In the 1930s, a new era of Soviet history began: as opposed to the 1920s when some of entrepreneurial methods of doing business could be used by companies and citizens, the state-centralised planned economy was now introduced as the only possible way of distributing resources. The 1930s are typically associated with wrongful persecution (GULAG), political repressions (the Great Purge), and pre-war anxiety. A relatively pluralistic and liberal period of the 1920s was followed by the establishment of a dictatorship under Joseph Stalin, the reasons for which are still debated: some authors believe that it is common for the Russian political “pendulum” to swing from conservative to liberal and vice versa, while others say that is was Stalin’s purposeful political moves that eventually gave him almost unlimited political power. Whatever the reasons, all spheres of Soviet life were affected by these changes, including culture: various artistic movements were now placed under the jurisdiction of Government bodies. All forms of art were assigned the mission of supporting the birth and development of Stalin’s personality cult. Architecture was understood as a tool of “monumental propaganda”,355 aiming at praising Stalin and the Party, and Moscow was renovated according to the newly adopted political paradigm, its predominant architectural style now resembling old Imperial Rome.
The strategy of further development of Moscow was outlined in the decree issued by the Council of Ministers of the USSR in July 1935. The document included the following guidelines:356 clearing additional space for roads and relocating industrial buildings away from the central area of the city and constructing new smart residential areas, both for the new citizens and the old ones. The Decree had a considerable impact on the SHM’s surroundings. The shopping area ‘Okhotny Ryad’ was reconstructed: old buildings were knocked down, giving space for the Manezhnaya square and the Moscow hotel.
Several other changes in the Red Square area occurred, possibly because of the newly assigned role of administrative centre. The Square, which had been previously used as a place for public events and festivals, was now perceived as a place for military propaganda: the very first military parades took place there just after the Revolution.
355 The need for monumental propaganda was first voiced by Vladimir Lenin: special decree was published in 1918, and according to it, tsar monuments and statues should be removed and new ones, promoting revolution, had to be installed. 356 Posohin, M. V., ed., Sovetskaja arhitektura za 50 let, p. 78.
141 Such usage of the Square affected its spatial organisation and look. Several historic buildings were demolished. The Kazansky cathedral, located in front of the side facade of the SHM, was destroyed in 1936 in order to make room for a new pavilion dedicated to the Third International. The Iverskaya Chapel and the entire Voskresensky gate complex, which the chapel had been a part of, were disassembled in 1929 and 1931. While the demolition of the chapel was caused by anti-religion Governmental policies, the gate was removed as it inconvenienced the traffic during military parades. Due to the buildings’ historical and architectural value, art and history specialists tried to find ways in which they could be used in these new circumstances. Some of the proposed options were repurposing them as additional exhibition spaces for the SHM or continuing to use them as an actual gate, but with improved capacity. However, the Government did not consider these solutions, as the buildings would still complicate parade proceedings. To quote Lazar Kaganovich, the head of several large-scale Government organisations, ‘my aesthetic preferences, however, require that the columns marching during the demonstration from six different areas of Moscow enter the Red Square simultaneously.’357
The new political and military function of the Square affected not only the surroundings, but the physical shape of the SHM and the Kremlin, specifically the towers. Both buildings at the time of the Empire were crowned with various symbols of monarchies – gilded eagle figurines, lions and unicorns. All of the figurines were removed in 1935, and in the case of the Kremlin, were replaced with easily recognizable five-pointed red stars, a part of the Soviet coat of arms and the official symbol of the Red Army.358,359
The monument to Minin and Pozharsky, originally located near the central entrance to the GUM, was moved to St Basil’s Cathedral, also in 1931, and for the purposes of better access for military parades.360 The GUM building was constructed and used to host a large shopping centre, however, it had significant historic roots (the building was
357 Konstantin Mihajlov, Moskva, kotoruju my poterjali [Moscow we lost] (Moscow: Jeksmo; Jauza, 2010), p. 162. 358 Graeme Gill, Symbols and Legitimacy in Soviet Politics (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 28. 359 Stalin i Kaganovich. Perepiska. 1931-1936 [Stalin and Kaganovich. Correspondence. 1931-1936], ed. by O. V. Hlevnjuk et al. (Moscow: ROSSPJeN, 2001), p. 527 360 Pamjatnik Mininu i Pozharskomu [Monument to Minin and Pozharsky], Uznaj Moskvu
142 erected at the same time as the SHM and replaced an older structure with similar purposes) and architectural value because of its unique composition and engineering properties. The GUM itself was not changed in any way, only decorated with political posters and banners for the parades which took place several times a year. However, there was discussion about demolishing the building and replacing it with the Palace of Heavy Industry, which can be seen on architectural plans and sketches available at the State Schusev Museum of Architecture.361
The example of the Palace demonstrates some of the key features of Soviet understanding of architecture and urban environments. Each design offered by different architects had a grandiose appearance and would dominate any area where it was placed, as other options, beyond the Red Square, were discussed as well. The designs often involved demolishing possibly valuable architectural objects. After a few major competitions that involved some of the most prominent architects of the time (Ivan Fomin, Alexander and Victor Vesnin, Moisei Ginzburg), the project was abandoned altogether, possibly because of the death of Sergei Ordzhonikidze, the head of the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry, which triggered the demise and eventual reorganisation of the institution into smaller entities. Some of the other ambitious projects required the destruction of the SHM building, however, those were primarily speculative.362
Apart from destruction, replacement and changing the physical appearance of the buildings, another noticeable characteristic of the time was changing the original function of the building. The most radical examples – the churches – are discussed above, however, religious structures were not the only type that underwent repurposing. It is especially logical that some of these buildings were assigned new political functions and that they were mostly in proximity to the Kremlin. One such example was the State Duma building.
361 Elena Nikulina, ‘Mel'nikov i Leonidov: konkursnye proekty Narkomtjazhproma v Moskve. Formotvorcheskie idei i universal'naja geometrija v uslovijah real'nogo goroda’ [Melnikov and Leonidov: competitive projects of Narkomtjazhprom in Moscow. Ideas and universal geometry in the city], Arhitekturnyj Vestnik, 1(112) (2010), pp. 49-55. 362 Ibid.
143 The SHM administration had made several attempts to acquire the building in question since the early 20th century, when the SHM collections had grown significantly and there was not enough space to store them properly. Back in January 1914, Nikolay Sherbatov, the then SHM director, approached the Head of Moscow City Duma asking for permission to use the Duma’s building, which was connected to the SHM via the Voskresensky gate. At that time, the City Duma was about to begin the construction of a new facility, and the SHM, as well as the Zabelin city library, were interested in the old building.
As was mentioned in the previous chapter, the Duma had already contributed to the SHM establishment by providing the committee with a piece of land on the Red Square; Sherbatov used that as an argument while asking for the new donation. As for the aforementioned Zabelin city library, its members of staff were interested in getting extra space for storage, as well as space for a future Moscow history museum. In his statement addressed to the Head of City Duma, Sherbatov explained the role of Zabelin in the SHM history, and proposed merging the two organisations by combining the library with the SHM funds, and forming a department of Moscow city history within the SHM.363 Because of the outbreak of WWI and the Civil War which followed, the merger never took place and neither the library, nor the SHM, was provided with the building in question.
After the Revolution, the Duma’s building was used for administrative purposes, and in 1935 it was finally given to the Central Lenin Museum, which occupied it up until 1993. The original interior decorations were removed; the St George figurine that used to top the entrance of the central facade was replaced with a worker and peasant figures, the symbols of the Revolution.364 It took almost a century before the SHM finally obtained this facility through means analysed in the next chapter.
363 Pis'mo Tovarishha Predsedatelja Rossijskogo Istoricheskogo muzeja N.S. Shherbatova gorodskomu golove o peredache zdanija Dumy v sobstvennost' Muzeja, 28 janvarja 1914 [Letter from N. Sherbatov to the Moscow city duma regarding the donation of the Duma's building to the SHM, 28 January 1914], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 129. 364 Zdanie Gorodskoj dumy [City Council building], Uznaj Moskvu
144 The Central Lenin Museum was used not just as exhibition space, but also as a place to perform the ceremony of becoming a pioneer, a member of the Vladimir Lenin All- Union Pioneer Organisation.365 The elements of the ceremony included a visit to the Red Square and the Mausoleum and taking the pioneer oath in one of the museum halls. 366
Another major change in the structure of the Red Square was the construction of Lenin’s mausoleum after his death in 1924, and prior to that – the Kremlin wall necropolis, initially for important revolutionaries, and later for other prominent Soviet figures, both military and civilian, for example, the astronaut Yuri Gagarin. The first graves were in the ground and had grey granite busts of the deceased above. Later, such courtesy would be extended only to the central figures in the country’s history, and since 1925 most people buried in the Necropolis were cremated, and the ashes were placed in the Kremlin wall. As was mentioned in the previous chapter, the SHM building was to originally be placed just near the Kremlin wall, in that exact place where the Mausoleum was finally erected, and one can only wonder what may have happened to the museum in this case.
The mausoleum is a crypt-like building, where the body of Vladimir Lenin is still displayed to the public; the current building was completed in October 1930. Visiting the Mausoleum was considered something that every true communist should do at least once during his or her lifetime, thus bearing a strong resemblance to pilgrimage. The visit was strictly structured, beginning in a long queue and proceeding to the purposefully poorly-lit inside of the building where Lenin’s body could be observed, and the visitors could only move forward in total silence at a certain distance from the body. Scripted Mausoleum visits can be viewed as a ritual. According to C. Duncan, a museum visit is ritualized if it is a “liminal” experience (meaning that it transports the audience to a different realm), and if it has a special script or scenario, making visitors interact with it in a very particular manner, “enacting the ritual”.367 The advanced level of structure and discipline was characteristic of Soviet museums of the time, in which
365 V.K. Krivoruchenko, Istorija Vsesojuznoj pionerskoj organizacii imeni V. I. Lenina v hronike dat i sobytij [The history of All-union Pioneer organisation], 2 vols. (Moscow: Mol. gvardija, 1985) 366 An example of the ceremony can be found at V muzee V.I. Lenina [Inside the Museum of Lenin], online video recording, Youtube, 23 November 2013,
145 there was very little dialogue and interactivity, and the guide’s manner mimicked a political leader, by being domineering and authoritative. Such replacement of ritualized spaces – churches – with non-church buildings (museums, stadiums, Government buildings, et cetera) seems to be a trait of the Soviet period, as instance, it was natural to call not only a museum, but also a library or a university, a temple of culture.
By the second half of the 1930s, the SHM building became part of a highly ritualised space, which was perceived as a symbolic centre of Soviet Russia. On the other hand, being part of this system did not guarantee any protection to the building’s integrity. Its architectural value came under scrutiny within a new context, and its historical value was not yet established. It is possible that the changes that will be discussed further in this chapter took place due to this kind of perception.
SHM Reorganisation and Renovation in 1936-1937
During the 1920s and early 1930s, members of the SHM’s staff, together with the representatives of Governmental bodies, were looking for an organisational structure that would accommodate the requirements of both the museum and the Government. In 1928, a number of first proposals were formulated and experimented with at the museum, such as shifting focus from research to visitor involvement and political education. Curatorial departments were assigned with both collection-related duties and organising exhibitions. Even though such an approach was in agreement with the contemporary state cultural policy, after a few years it was rejected on the basis of the argument that a museum as an institution could not perform educational functions without a strong scientific foundation.368
Following the decisions of the First National Museum Congress, which was held in December 1930 in Moscow, the SHM staff began developing a new exhibition layout in order to accommodate the Soviet period of history. The main goal was to both extend the permanent exhibition with the periods of Russian history, which had not been showcased before, as well as interpret the existing collections according to Marxist theory. The latter meant that within this concept, an authentic museum object was no
368 Anna Borisovna Zaks, ‘Iz istorii Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo muzeja (1917-1941 gg.)’, p. 346.
146 longer considered a cornerstone of a museum. It was the period when models, replicas and various diagrams became an integral, if not the most important, part of any exhibition, both at the SHM and nationwide.
Just a few years later, in 1934, the next period of reorganisation began. Following new state recommendations on methods of teaching history,369 museum staff concentrated their efforts on education. Another significant consequence was the shift from an information-centred to object-centred display approach, meaning that original artefacts were once again considered more important that any type of teaching aid.370 The work on the permanent exhibition was a continuous process, as the original plan was not completed before the Revolution. After the Revolution, the next period of history had to be accommodated within the museum walls and the exhibition policies were constantly being updated. At the moment in question, the permanent exhibition was completed only up to the year 1861, when Alexander II freed the serfs. While the curatorial department was responsible for developing the new exhibition, the museum administration had to complete the renovation of the building’s infrastructure.371.According to various reports, the facility required major refurbishment in the following areas: electricity, alarm and telephone systems, water-distribution system, ventilation, and others.
The staff were in a rush to finish all these works, including the physical changes to the building discussed below, by November 1937, the 20th anniversary of the Revolution. A superficial analysis of the events of the renovation would likely pinpoint the urgent Government-mandated Pushkin exhibition, which took up half of the available space at the museum, as the main reason that the permanent exhibition could not be completed on time. However, one can argue that there had been serious organisational flaws made during the initial planning stages as well. The Pushkin exhibition and its impact on spatial organisation of the SHM will be discussed further in this chapter.
369 206. O prepodavanii grazhdanskoj istorii v shkolah SSSR [206. On the teaching of civil history in schools of the USSR], 113 Izvestij CIK Sojuza SSR i VCIK ot 16 maja 1934 goda
147 The flaws mentioned above are not presented in most of the official documents describing the process of the renovation, and the only group of sources that can shed light on these issues are the minutes of staff meetings at the maintenance department, covering the period between 1934 and 1940.372 One of the main issues discussed during these meetings was lack of communication between the maintenance, curatorial, and accounting departments, which resulted in failure to meet time constraints, as well as a lack of planning, which interfered with everyday tasks. This lack of transparency and collaboration was observed and expressed at the meetings by staff members of varying importance, including the lowest-ranked ones, such as electricians.373
The physical changes of the building, therefore, occurred in an atmosphere of high pressure and administrative disorganisation. Most of the elements of the renovation are now traditionally referred to as intentional vandalism, however, the data uncovered during the present research shows that the recorded changes had a foundation formulated by professional architects and art historians. The other group of changes (such as the whitening of the ceiling and wall frescoes in Paradnue Seni) is not recorded in any sources, and I have made an attempt to interpret these transformations using the scarce data available within the context.
Andrey Burov
The architect in the charge of the 1937 renovation was Andrey Burov. There is no evidence as to who invited him to design the nine halls on the first exhibition floor, however, his biography and list of achievements demonstrate that he was a reasonable choice. As opposed to Vladimir Sherwood, who had neither the educational background in architecture nor previous experience in construction, Burov, before joining the SHM project, had been working as an architect for more than a decade, mainly focusing on residential development and industrial construction. Additionally, Burov did not have any disagreements with the authorities and had a strong interest in the national Russian style.
372 Protokoly proizvodstvennyh soveshhanij sotrudnikov hoz otdela 1934-1940 [Minutes of meetings of the housekeeping department], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 468. 373 Ibid.
148 Andrey Burov, born in 1900 in Moscow into the family of architect Konstantin Burov, studied at Vkhutemas.374 During the 1920s he was a member of the Constructivist movement, working alongside such prominent figures as Alexander Vesnin, Moisey Ginzburg, and Alexey Gan. During this period, Burov designed a number of workers’ houses of culture (‘dom kultury’, see above); in addition to that he worked as a theatre decorator. In 1926, Sergei Eisenstein, a prominent Russian filmmaker, invited Burov to design a model of an ideal sovkhoz (state farm), which would appear in his new movie The General Line. Designed as a decoration, the project nevertheless received positive feedback in architectural communities, both in the Union and abroad, and later Burov was hired to design a real sovkhoz375 in Rostov.
In the late 1920s, Burov left the Constructivist group and focused on industrial buildings. His departure from the group was caused by creative differences rather than personal conflict, of which there is no evidence. He was sent to the USA in order to gain experience in automobile plant construction. He described the trip in letters to his family, which were published in 1980. Burov criticised the way American architects worked on projects (‘no theory, no calculations, <...> no explanation for their choices’),376 although it is unclear if these were actual criticisms or an attempt to persuade a possible perlustrator, since correspondence sent from abroad could be checked by KGB agents.377
Upon his return from America, Burov started a PhD course at the newly established All- Soviet Academy of Architecture of the USSR. In the course of his work he was granted a rare opportunity to go abroad to visit France, Italy, and Greece and to study Ancient Greek, Roman, and Renaissance architecture. The political and social environment, however, was primarily unfavourable: the trip took place despite an anonymous tip about possible abuse of the opportunity from an envious colleague, but Burov had to address higher authorities to explain the situation. Soon after the trip, upon completing several minor residential and retail projects, Burov was invited to work on the SHM interiors. Later in life, Burov worked on such important locations as the Central
374 Russian: Вхутемас, acronym for Высшие художественно-технические мастерские - Vysshiye Khudozhestvenno-Tekhnicheskiye Masterskiy, Higher Art and Technical Studios 375 Russian: совхоз [sɐfˈxos], abbreviated from советское хозяйство, "Soviet farm". 376 A.K. Burov, Andrej Konstantinovich Burov: Pis'ma. Dnevniki. Besedy s aspirantami. Suzhdenija sovremennikov, p. 36 377 Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti which stands for Committee for State Security
149 Moscow Hippodrome and the Central House of Architect, gradually moving from architecture to physics because of his interest in construction materials.
The Renovation and Its Interpretation
The entire process of planning and implementing the changes to the SHM building took less than a year, and on November 4th the exhibition content and interior design were inspected by a commission that consisted of both prominent historians and political officials, who found the results of the renovation acceptable. The renovation was the first time in SHM history when the interior decoration of the entire first exhibition floor was completed and had a unified logical design.378
The SHM was responsible for making the final decision on proposed drafts. The design drafts and changes to them were discussed and voted on at least four meetings (these ones were documented) that took place in the spring and the summer of 1937. Reports on these meetings demonstrate that the staff members could openly contribute to the design process and express opinions on the proposed drafts.379 For instance, while discussing the decoration of the Grand Duchy of Moscow hall, one of the staff members proposed to remove an architectural wall element that resembled that of a Russian Orthodox church.380
Burov was the architect of the project and the head of a team that included several artists. One staff member expressed the opinion that Burov was not focused specifically on collection items that would be displayed in the halls he was working on.381 It is possible that this was just a perception, or that Burov was indeed primarily interested in the bigger picture, or that the other members of his team or the staff of the museum were responsible for analysing the content.
378 Tematiko-jekspozicionnye plany i teksty jekspozicionnyh zalov ## 14–21 [Thematic and exhibition plans for halls 14-21], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 553, folio 34. 379 Ibid., folio 6. 380 Ibid., folio 20. 381 Anna Zaks, Jeta dolgaja, dolgaja zhizn: 1933-1963, vol 2, p. 44.
150 Burov’s team closely collaborated with the SHM team, which consisted of members of the administration, the head of the museological department, exhibition curators, and the head of collections; each of the curators was responsible for a particular topic and for the decoration of a hall that would display that topic. At least one of the SHM team members, Georgy Malitzky, the head of the museological department, started working at the museum before the Revolution, and was able to offer insights into previous decoration practices.
Burov’s approach to the renovation can be characterised as grounded in theory. Burov stated that before borrowing any kind of anachronic or foreign architectural details it was necessary to study the social and economic contexts in which the architectural style that these items belong to was developed.382 He insisted that blindly copying the elements from earlier centuries was not a sign of national style, and that each generation of architects interpreted it in their own way, with the core, not the details, remaining unchanged.383
Burov summed up his contribution in an article published in July 1937. Burov explainedhis aims for the project as uncovering the roots of the real Russian national style and its connections with the ancient architectural traditions of Greece.384 He insisted on using the bare minimum of interior design elements, such as mouldings, capitals, and colour choices, that would be enough to hint at the historical period in question. Burov was trying to challenge the widely-held perception that traditional Russian architecture involved a great deal of elaborate, almost fairy-tale-like ornamental elements, which was informed by the works of the late 19th century architect Ivan Ropet, whose surname Burov and his colleagues tended to call unfortunate and considered his works overly sophisticated in their decorative nature.385
382 Ibid., p. 46. 383 A.K. Burov, Andrej Konstantinovich Burov: Pis'ma. Dnevniki. Besedy s aspirantami. Suzhdenija sovremennikov. pp. 99-100. 384 A. Burov, ‘Posle arhitekturnogo s"ezda’ [after Architectural Congress], Sovetskoe iskusstvo, 17 July 1937, 33(379). 385 Ibid.
151 There is a document at the SHM archive in which similar ideas are expressed, however, it is not clear if it played any role in the renovation process or who the author was.386 The document suggested that a museum interior had to, first and foremost, enhance displaying of the collections, and therefore, the original design of some of the SHM halls was deemed excessive and unprofessional, as it obstructed the view and misrepresented some of the historical elements. If the principles outlined in the documents were indeed at the foundation of the renovation, based solely on the ideas provided in it, it is not possible to conclude that the changes in the interior had any strong political bias or significance, as the document made no references to politics whatsoever.
The document consisted of two parts. The first one listed the previous interior decoration choices that were considered architectural mistakes: when decorative qualities were prioritised over historical accuracy, authenticity, and the collections on display; and the use of collection items without clearly communicating their historical value. The second part provided the architects and artists with general principles to be followed. The design could employ elements of old Russian architecture as long as these did not distract the visitor from the items on display, and was historically and architecturally authentic, in other words was originally used as a part of the building. The colour choices had to be based on those characteristics of the featured historical period.
The document insisted that an architect had to respect the diversity of collection items, creating an environment in which they would all be coherently and equally well- represented. However, if the curators stressed the need for some items to receive more attention, they had to be emphasized by architectural means, as well as other methods. The design choices had to be scientifically accurate, both in terms of historic science, and modern data on the psychology of education and perception; the latter meant, for instance, colour-coding the spaces that were used to exhibit items from a certain historical period.387
386 Tematiko-jekspozicionnye plany i teksty jekspozicionnyh zalov ## 14–21 [Thematic and exhibition plans for halls 14-21], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 553, folio 1. 387 Tematiko-jekspozicionnye plany i teksty jekspozicionnyh zalov ## 14–21 [Thematic and exhibition plans for halls 14-21], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 21.
152 The scope of Burov’s spatial changes was limited to nine halls (numbers 13-21) of the first exhibition floor.
It is possible that the halls that were left in the pre-revolution condition were deemed suitable in terms of the engineering and the design. It is also possible that some of the works did take place in the other spaces, but were deemed not significant enough to be discussed in the documents available. Some archival material may have been lost. It is also known that some changes occurred in Halls 7 and 8: some of the wall decorations were whitened, and copies of St. Michael's Golden-Domed monastery mosaics were removed.388 However, Burov himself never mentioned performing any work in these halls, and the archives do not contain data on who did so. It is possible that some of the most controversial changes that are often attributed to Burov, such as whitening the Paradnue Seni ceiling, were implemented by another group of workers or members of the SHM staff.
The first hall that was changed in the course of Burov’s 1937 work was Number 13, dedicated to the Grand Duchy of Moscow in the 14th and 15th centuries. Burov decided to whiten the ceiling painting, which included ornaments inspired by the Monomakh's Cap,389 presumably to avoid using non-architectural elements such as decoration on cloth in interior design. However, he did not suggest any changes to the floor, which was decorated with early Orthodox patterns that had been previously observed only on a cross frame dating back to the early 13th century.
The inconsistency described above is more apparent if the changes in wall decorations are examined. The original pieces, multiple elements of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, and a church in Zvenigorod, were replaced by one element from a palace in Kolomenskoe and an inverted model of a rose window from the Church of the Transfiguration at Ostrov, while the majority were simply removed. There are a number of possible explanations for these choices, however, none of them are definitely stated in any documents, formal or informal.
388 N.S. Datieva, Istoricheskaja zapiska [Historical note], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive (November 1989). 389 Natal'ja Datieva, Istoricheskij muzej. Arhitektura. Inter'ery, p. 147.
153 The changes could be explained by the general anti-religious political climate, which is contradicted by the fact that, instead of removing all church elements completely, Burov chose to replace several of them with others. Although an image of this element – a rose window that he transformed into a white counter-relief – appears to bear little or no resemblance to something one would normally find in a Russian Orthodox church (the style of the Ostrov building is professionally described as partly pseudo-gothic),390 and, therefore, does not disprove the possibility of anti-religious attitudes being the reason for the changes. The analysis of the changes made to the other halls, however, does not indicate that any of the decisions were significantly anti-religious.
Another possible explanation could be that Burov was simply following the same strategy as in all of the other improvements he made: clearing the space of elements that distract the viewer from the objects on display. It is also probable that he was aiming at a clear look without the excessive, unnaturally, and unrealistically “Russian” wooden carving.
The way Burov redesigned Hall 13 was criticised by both Datieva in her research in the late 1980s and 2010s, and by Burov’s contemporary, an art historian Alexander Gabrichevsky in 1938 (fig. 11).391 Whereas Datieva focuses on the fact of destruction rather than on the reasons why certain elements were replaced, Gabrichevsky criticised the results of the work. From his point of view, Burov’s rose window looked like a museum object, therefore deceiving audiences. Another point of criticism was that Burov implemented certain architectural elements without following their original function.392 In other words, Burov was accused of exactly what he was trying to avoid.
390 Vol'fgang Vol'fgangovich Kavel'maher, Cerkov' Preobrazhenija v Ostrove [Church of the Transfiguration in the Ostrov] (Moscow: Alev-V, 2009) 391 A. Gabrichevskij, Novoe oformlenie inter'erov Istoricheskogo muzeja [New interior design in the Historical Museum], Arhitektura SSSR, January 1938, 1, pp. 75-79 392 Ibid.
154
Figure 11. Illustration from A. Gabrichevskij’s article Novoe oformlenie inter'erov Istoricheskogo muzeiya [New interior design in the Historical Museum], Arhitektura SSSR, January 1938, 1
Halls 14, 15 and 16 had no previously implemented design solutions, as they were not completed before the Revolution, and therefore, the result of Burov’s work was the first original look of these interiors. Hall 14 was decorated with the elements from Kolomensky tsar residence (16th-17th centuries). In the case of Hall 15 (establishment of a new centralized multinational state), due to lack of time the team did not manage to complete research on the authentic look of medieval Russian houses and opted for a number of simple wooden ceiling beams that were actually based on Venetian architecture, which Burov had studied during his trips. Gabrichevsky remarks upon the resemblance to the Ducal Palace in Urbino, however, he finds the elements perfectly suitable and acceptable.393
393 Ibid., p. 79
155 The changes in the remaining five halls were more dramatic. Since the SHM staff kept working on the new permanent exhibition, which had to introduce topics from the late 19th and the 20th centuries, and the second floor was at that moment occupied by the Pushkin exhibition, they had no other choice than to maximize the capacity of the space available on the first floor. Halls 17-19, which had originally been used for showcasing items related to Ivan the Terrible, had been redesigned to exhibit two new topics alongside the old one: Ukrainian people fighting against the Polish oppression, and the history of Russia in the late 17th – early 18th century. All previous decoration, which was inspired by St Basil’s Cathedral constructed during Ivan the Terrible’s reign, was removed and Burov had to develop a new design for each of the halls. Thus, Hall 17, dedicated to the peoples of the Volga area and Siberia and the colonial politics of the 17th century, now contained elements from the Georgian St. George Church in Moscow. The design of Hall 18, showcasing Belarus and Ukraine in the 16th-17th centuries, was inspired by the exterior decoration of the Lyzohub family manor in Sedniv, near Chernihiv. Hall 19, displaying artefacts from the end of the 17th and early 18th century, was transformed according to the Naryshkin baroque style, similar to such examples as the Kolomensky palace and the Church of the Intercession at Fili.
In the case of Hall 20, which had been originally dedicated to Boris Godunov (late 16th century) and in 1937 repurposed for displaying Peter the Great (early 18th century), Burov had to implement those elements that would represent a completely different Russian architecture, the one inspired by the Dutch style which Peter the Great had introduced to Russia. Hall 21, previously used for displaying the Times of Troubles (early 17th century), was renovated according to the style of the second half of the 18th century. Specifically, the ceiling was whitened, as the original decorations were based on patterns found in oriental textiles and on the Ivan the Great bell tower, while the other changes were brought on by the new exhibition layout. For instance, the doorway, which was originally a copy of the northern entrance to the Uspensky Cathedral of Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, was replaced with one inspired by the Russian Baroque style. Five portraits of historical figures of the 17th century were put into storage, giving space for architectural decorative items appropriate for the 1740s. Burov’s contemporaries pointed out that his choices for Halls 20 and 21, while milder and more minimalist than would be natural for the Russian Baroque movement, still conveyed the essence of this style.
156
Overall, the response to Burov’s work was generally positive at the time when the changes were implemented and overly critical at the end of the 20th century. Gabrichevsky considered the changes reasonable and respectful, and what is even more important, he interpreted Burov’s approach to the Russian style. Gabrichevsky focused on the connections between the Russian and Western architecture, stating that the Russian style could be considered a unique and significant development within the architecture of the world. In Gabrichevsky’s opinion, it was a professional project, well designed and enforced, despite minor issues, as opposed to his opinion of Vladimir Sherwood and his colleagues. Gabrichevsky stated that they did not give attention to the display quality of the halls, focusing on architectural decoration, rather than on the way it would support museum objects.
The same critical idea can be found in David Arkin’s article, published in December 1937. His colleague, Gabrichevsky, could have been making the same factual mistake, blaming Sherwood for the poor choices in interior decoration, but due to the phrasing of his article it is unclear if he knew that Sherwood was not the one designing these decorations. Arkin, however, plainly states that ‘Sherwood didn’t pay any attention to museum interiors, making them boring, using the same decoration in each of the halls’.394 As was analysed in the previous chapter, Sherwood produced designs of each of the forty museum halls, however, his theatrical approach to interior decoration was not supported by the Committee; moreover, since disagreements between Sherwood and Zabelin and Uvarov were fundamental, the architect was finally fired, and other architects and artists created new designs and completed the decoration. Both Arkin and Gabrichevsky did not focus on the context in which Sherwood and his colleagues had been developing the Russian style, and therefore, their professional opinion of Burov’s work is not necessarily objective.
One of the most recent examples of the modern approach to Burov’s work was presented in Natalia Datieva’s The Historical Museum. Architecture and Interiors (2015). The book is based on research conducted by Datieva, an architectural historian
394 D. Arkin, Inter'ery Istoricheskogo muzeja [Interiors of the Historical Museum], Sovetskoe iskusstvo, 56 (402) (5 December 1937), p. 6.
157 in charge of research before the renovation of 1986-1997. The book consists of two parts: the first one provides the readers with a brief overview of the museum’s spatial history, and the second gives a detailed description of each of the halls on the first floor, and a general description of the second exhibition floor. The photographs in the book offer a unique insight into the visual world of the museum, including some architectural details which visitors may not notice unless specifically pointed towards them.
Datieva’s research was the first of its kind; before the late 1970s, hardly anyone considered the SHM building a worthy subject. Rare exceptions are the authors mentioned above: Moisey Razgon, the then SHM member of staff, who was working on a monograph on the SHM history, and Elena Kirichenko, an architectural historian, whose research was dedicated to Russian architecture of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Both authors mainly focused on the pre-revolution period in the SHM history and did not analyse further spatial changes.
As for Datieva’s research, her main goal was to uncover as many spatial changes as possible in order to provide the conservators with detailed information regarding the original look of the museum halls; even though it was never said directly, in this case original meant the architectural choices made before the revolution of 1917. These materials had not been published at that moment, however, Datieva used extracts from them in her various articles on the topic. The 2015 book is based on these 1980s texts, which were re-written in order to sound engaging for the audiences that are not familiar with the museum.
In Datieva’s work, there is a significant difference between the amount of information regarding the pre-revolutionary period (7 pages) and the 20th century (2 pages). While she provides the reader with a sufficiently detailed insight into the process of the SHM creation, she pays almost no particular attention to the events and changes that followed. These latter ones are presented as a list of facts accompanied with quite a narrow interpretation, where the choice of language shows a very particular opinion about the events that took place, these choices being even harsher in the 1980s version. The terms that were used in both sources are discussed below.
158 While the removal of plasterwork is characterized as ruthless in 1980, in Datieva’s 2015 book it is just removed. The 1980s article refers to the architect's changes in Hall 13 as thoughtless, impotent, dry, and an obvious failure, and while the 2015 text maintains the same position, the word choices are much milder, such as the placement of the word ‘reconstruction’ in brackets. However, in the earlier article, she did not characterize the changes in the Paradnue Seni as ‘destruction’, but the term appeared in the later text. Both texts criticize the new wall paintings in Hall 20, but the earlier copy refers to it as a mutilation, and the later one discusses it less harshly, but interprets these changes as exclusively political. It is quite possible that the 2015 book sounds, in general, less critical of the Soviet changes, as these were the editor’s suggestions. It is also possible that the author no longer had the incentive to convince the reader of the necessity of the reversal, as it had already been performed.
The current SHM administration continues to use almost the same language while talking about the spatial significance of the building. It was particularly visible during the events aimed at celebrating the Museum’s 145th Anniversary. In a number of interviews, Alexey Levykin, the SHM director, promoted the role of Vladimir Sherwood and Anatoly Semenov, whereas the contribution of Andrey Burov (as well as other architects involved in the further renovations) were either unmentioned or were criticized without providing any thorough explanations.395
Whereas the renovation of 1936-1937 has been analysed to a certain extent, and there are reflections on the role it played in the history of the SHM, another major event that occurred during the same period of time has been overlooked. Without questioning the impact of Burov’s renovation, I would like to argue that the Pushkin exhibition, which opened in February 1937, had a no less dramatic effect on the SHM’s development. Since the data available is rather scarce, the following section will address some of the issues which can be considered in further research projects.
395 Aleksej Levykin, ‘Kazhdaja Jepoha Tait Poddelki’ [Every epoch carries a forgery] (interviewed by Anna Sabova), Kommersant.ru (29 February 2016).
159 The Pushkin Exhibition
On December 13th, 1936, the SHM director received a letter from the Council of People's Commissars stating that by December 18th of the same year, i.e. in five days, the SHM administration had to remove all the collections that had been previously stored on the second floor in order to give room for an upcoming Pushkin exhibition. The administration had to contribute to the future exhibition by all possible means, including the renovation of the second floor and lending items from their collection to be displayed. The letter also contained recommendations on how to decorate the halls of the second floor: they had been rather neutral in order for the museum to be able to use them afterwards. It was also mentioned that the renovation of the entrance zone had to be completed as soon as possible. Even though the letter does not contain any other details, it is possible to assume that it was exactly when the ceiling and the wall decorations of Paradnue Seni were whitened. The instruction also included recommendations on improvements to the cloak rooms and bathrooms.396
The exhibition in question would commemorate the centenary of Alexander Pushkin’s death. The mere fact and the attempts to interpret it raise a number of questions, among them the reasons for the importance of Pushkin’s figure to the Government, the choice of Moscow and specifically the SHM as a venue, and the impact, both positive and negative, of the exhibition on the SHM as an institution.
The importance of Pushkin was possibly based on the Soviet Government’s attempts to present him as a revolutionary hero. Pushkin had a difficult relationship with the tsar, and even more importantly, collaborated with the Decemberists – a liberal movement established in Russia after the Patriotic War of 1812. It was considered to be the first of its kind; most of its members promoted the idea of a constitutional monarchy, while some suggested more radical changes. Thus, in the 1920s, Pushkin was proclaimed the poet of the anti-monarchy movement.397 Pushkin’s work was included in school curricula, where he was presented as the most prominent figure in Russian literature. It
396 Dokumenty ob organizacii i dejatel'nosti Muzeja A.S. Pushkina (prikazy, protokoly, dogovor, akty), 5 oktjabrja 1936 – 12 nojabrja 1940 [Documents on the Organisation and activities of A.S. Pushkin Museum (orders, protocols, acts), October 5, 1936-November 12, 1940], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 517, folio 2. 397 Jasakova, Ekaterina Aleksandrovna, ‘A. S. Pushkin v literaturno-obshhestvennoj situacii 1920-h godov’ [A. S. Pushkin in literary and social situation of the 1920s] (PhD thesis, Saratov university, 2001)
160 should be stressed here that before the Revolution, free public education was not available in the Russian Empire; even though there were a number of institutions which could provide some basic knowledge, such as parochial schools, the majority of the population consisted of peasants who could not read.398 One of the primary aims of a newly established Soviet Government was providing equal access to free education. A number of literacy campaigns were launched in the 1920s and 1930s,399 and the results of the 1939 census stated that 90 per cent of the population were already literate. Therefore, by the late 1930s, one or two generations must have been exposed to Pushkin’s work and were taught about its importance, both cultural and in terms of the Revolution.
As for the location of the Pushkin exhibition, the choice of Moscow as the primary location for celebrations could also have been political, as Saint Petersburg (then Leningrad, a name it was given after Lenin’s death in 1924), was still associated with monarchy. It should be mentioned that the exhibition was to be held only 20 years after the Revolution, so the association was still strong.
The reasons for choosing the SHM as the venue are not obvious. According to the research conducted by L. Soldatova, it was the State Museum of Fine Arts that had been the main candidate. However, in the end, the celebration of Pushkin was marked there by a name change: the State Museum of Fine Art became the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts.400 There are no documents in the SHM archive which might explain the decision; one of the possible reasons is that, in 1937, the second floor of the SHM had not yet been decorated and employed for permanent exhibition, thus making it possible to use the space without removing existing items. It should be mentioned, however, that during the early 1930s the SHM staff was actively working on a new permanent exhibition (which had to include the halls on the second floor) and were preparing to implement it. Since the Pushkin exhibition was a top priority of the Government, it received the space, despite the interference in the main responsibilities of the museum. Another reason for
398 Adol'f Grigor'evich Rashin, Naselenie Rossii za 100 let (1811-1913 gg.) [Russian population in 100 years (1888-1960)] (Moscow: Gosstatizdat, 1956) 399 N. Gurkina, ‘6. Shkol'naja politika i obrazovanie v sovetskij period’ [6. School politics and education during the Soviet times], in Istorija obrazovanija v Rossii (X-XX veka)
161 choosing the SHM could have been its location, as the organizers may have wanted to associate Pushkin with the new Government and, therefore, the Red Square.
The official Government-issued decree on how to commemorate the centenary was issued on December 30th, 1936, however, the preparations began earlier, in 1934; moreover, a strong interest to Pushkin’s life arose decades before, both due to the Government and regardless of its actions. The main institution responsible for preserving Pushkin’s legacy was the Pushkin House, whose origin dates back to the late 19th century. Before I continue discussing the Pushkin exhibition, it is necessary to provide the context in which the Pushkin House emerged.
Alexander Pushkin was mortally wounded in a duel in February 1837. After his death, Pushkin’s relatives and friends began collecting objects and written sources that documented his life. The very first museum dedicated to Pushkin was founded in Saint Petersburg in 1879, and in 1899 the birth centenary was widely celebrated among Russian intelligentsia, thus establishing a tradition. A special commission was organized within the Academy of Sciences in order to curate all the events taking place during the centenary; after the celebrations, a new one was selected to work on the creation of a permanent institution dedicated to Pushkin’s life and work. The head of the newly founded organisation was the Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich. The project, entitled the ‘Pushkin monument’, was meant to be a scientific institution which would include three departments: a library, an archive, and a museum. It took several years to formulate the concept of its structure and functions, which were finally approved by Nicolas II in 1907, however it was not until 1927 that the institution was finally provided with a permanent facility on Vasilievsky island.401 The day of Pushkin’s death was established as a day of national significance to commemorate both Pushkin and other Russian writers and poets. During the 1920s and 1930s, the Pushkin house went through a number of reorganisations, some of its members of staff were charged with political crimes and convicted, as the museum, because of its importance to the Government, was under constant pressure from the authorities. There were also a number of other locations that had to be preserved as Pushkin’s heritage: his flat in
401 Imja Pushkinskogo Doma [The Name of Pushkin House], History of Russian literature Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
162 Saint Petersburg, manors in Mikhailovskoe and Trigorskoe, and his alma mater, the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum.402
In 1933, preparations for the upcoming death centenary began; in 1934 the USSR Central Executive committee formed an anniversary subcommittee chaired by Maxim Gorky, a prominent Russian writer of the time. A number of research institutions and museums had to provide the exhibition with items related to Pushkin’s biography. The exhibition was opened on February 16th, 1937, and during the first year approximately 650,000 people visited it; the amount was larger than the average annual number of visitors at the SHM. In March 1938, the Government issued an orderto organise the exhibition into a museum dedicated to Pushkin’s life and work as a part of the Gorky Institute of Literature;403 it took more than a decade before the museum was provided with its own building in Saint Petersburg and its collections were finally transferred from the SHM.
Documents available at the SHM archive uncover some of the tensions between the two institutions occupying the same building.404 During these years, there were a number of legal disputes that resulted in trials between the SHM and the newly established Pushkin Museum, since the latter one did not pay the rent on time.
By looking back at the Pushkin exhibition history, it can be seen that it involved a number of political issues, for instance, a number of members of the Pushkin committee were arrested, and the Pushkin research institution itself was overcontrolled by the Government. By comparing the way the Government took part in the SHM activities and the Pushkin institution, it can be seen that the latter was under significant ideological pressure, whereas the SHM, even though it had similar issues, still had a certain level of freedom.
402 Ibid. 403 Postanovlenie SNK SSSR ot 4.03.1938 # 256 ob organizacii Gosudarstvennogo muzeja A.S. Pushkina [On the establishment of the State museum of Alexander Pushkin]
163 The cases of both museums clearly illustrate that the professional community was under the same level of control that most of the country was experiencing at that time. The intrusive nature of the exhibition and the Governmental pressure, including convictions, might have also been the reason why there was so little institutional change at the SHM, especially initiated by the staff, as they were taught an unpleasant lesson about their lack of power.
Summary
While analysing the 1937 events, it is highly important to take into account the context in which those changes occurred to avoid a politically biased narrow interpretation of the events in question. After the 1917 Revolution, all spheres of life in Russia underwent radical change, including museums. All museums and private collections were nationalised; the museums were united into a centralized network and from that time were funded exclusively by the Government. This would continue until the 1990s. Museums were assigned a wide range of functions, primarily educational. On the one hand, a political angle was indeed introduced into the exhibiting process, placing certain limitations on the freedom of the museums as institutions, whilst on the other, the involvement of the Government in these early stages helped to invigorate the sphere, boosting growth in terms of the number of new museums, improvement of the organisational structure and the formation of museology as an academic field.
The SHM found itself in the middle of the changes, both because of the emphasis placed on the transformation of museums of history, and due to its location within the proximity of the new political centre. Moscow became the capital of the USSR in 1922, triggering major alterations to the appearance and structure of its built environment. Prior to the establishment of a stately Stalin’s Empire style in the 1930s, the 1920s were the period of architectural experiments known as the constructivist movement. Constructivist architects were focused on a more practical task of finding new forms and materials that would accommodate the emerging needs of the population. Older buildings were often viewed by both architects and politicians in terms of their usability, rather than symbolism, and so making significant changes and even demolition were quite possible in this system of thinking. Repurposing buildings, especially churches, was also a common trait of the time. The active urbanisation processes and the
164 understanding of the importance of architecture and its power led to the development of the field and better professional standards and educational options for architects. Thus, the renovation of the SHM was done by professionals formed by these previous years of reforms and vigorous activity in the field.
The central figures responsible for the physical shape of the SHM were Vladimir Sherwood and Andrey Burov, and even though their work is discussed in most of the academic sources of the SHM, it is assessed quite superficially. Sherwood’s work is highly regarded and praised, and Burov’s is traditionally criticised. The contributions of other important figures, such as the engineers Anatoly Semenov and Ilya Bondarenko, are often ignored partly or completely. Most of the critical comments on the 1937 renovation were made in the late 20th century by specialists, who, despite their extensive background in art history, in their works overlooked the institutional context in which these spatial changes were made.
In fact, based on the details discussed in the previous chapter, it appears that it was Sherwood’s approach that lacked professional depth. Moreover, the grounds for hiring him were personal, as opposed to being based upon relevant credentials: he had neither a degree in architecture, nor experience in developing any architectural projects or even studying existing museum facilities. Burov, on the other hand, was one of the most professional, educated and experienced Soviet architects of his time and his work was highly regarded by his contemporaries and met most of the necessary requirements. While Burov’s renovation project had its faults, there are no grounds for criticising it so harshly.
Burov’s work is often perceived as highly political, although the most politicised changes, the removal of the figurines and whitening of Paradnue Seni, had either been completed before his involvement or were not documented officially, therefore making it impossible to prove that Burov gave the orders.
All of the events at the SHM at the time are often perceived as political, and the Soviet Government is portrayed as intrusive, illogical, and overzealous. It might be an accurate portrayal, but does not regard the SHM renovation, which had been organized according to the museum guidelines and were aimed at making the exhibition halls more
165 convenient for displaying items. The part of SHM history in which the Government acted according to its aforementioned description was the Pushkin exhibition, which was a mandatory project that took up most of the spaces that would have otherwise been used for the new permanent exhibition. The growth of the museum was stunted, and instead of new spaces that it had been in need of since the completion of the construction, it was deprived of a large proportion of existing ones.
According to the data presented in this chapter, it possible to conclude that the traditional view of the late 1930s changes in the spatial features of the SHM, as unprofessional and barbaric, is quite superficial and biased. Most of the documented changes were conducted based on principles of historical accuracy and modern architectural views rather than any political incentives. The architect in charge of the renovation was highly qualified and was trying to accomplish the same goal that the founders of the museum had been pursuing, which was defining the Russian style in architecture. The work of the architect and the artists was found quite acceptable by their peers.
Most of the ‘destruction’ was an attempt to remove some of the excessive decorative solutions of the original interiors, in order to be able to demonstrate the authentic items of the museum’s collections. Whereas it is still unclear whose orders the staff were following while whitening the ceiling of Paradnue Seni and removing the figurines from the towers, it appears that these changes were Government-mandated, however, these decisions could have been made by individual members of such organisations as the Council of People's Commissars. It is also worth mentioning that the whitening did not destroy the ceiling portraits, which could have been an intentional choice, however, there is not enough data to support either point of view.
166 Chapter 6: The Reconstruction of 1986-1997: An Architectural U-turn
Chapter 6 focuses on the most recent renovation of the SHM, which took place between 1986 – when the museum building was closed to the public – and 2006, when all construction was completed. The scope of events examined in the chapter, however, is narrowed down to the period between 1974 and September 1997, when the first phase of the renovation was undertaken, and 11 halls of 42 were reopened during the celebration of Moscow’s 850th anniversary. The chapter is divided into two parts; part one focuses on a variety of contexts (historical, political, urban, professional) which had a significant impact on the renovation, whereas part two focuses on the renovation itself, with special attention to the decision-making process and the varying roles of the numerous parties involved.
The chapter opens with a chronological representation of minor spatial changes that occurred between 1937 and 1986. These changes included infrastructure upgrades, as well as further development of the exhibition layout, usually caused either by the condition of the building (scheduled and emergency maintenance) or another upcoming anniversary of the Revolution. The latter was important for two reasons: firstly, the Museum’s location meant that it was always a part or, at least, a background of the celebrations and, secondly, it was a museum of national history in a highly politicized context.
The chapter then proceeds to a broader contextual analysis, and traces two additional intertwined storylines in order to provide the research with arguments on why particular decisions were made during the most recent renovation. The first storyline is focused on the monument preservation movement which emerged in Russia in the late 19th century and fully developed after WWII. The SHM was classified as a monument in 1974, and since that time all renovation works had to be supervised by an authorised Governmental body. The second storyline concerns the further rise of museology in the USSR, accompanied by a discussion on how architecture was approached by Soviet specialists during the period in question.
167 The second part of the chapter covers the period between 1974, when the SHM was listed as a monument, and 1997, when the first halls were opened to the public. The events described can be viewed chronologically, the first stage being attempts to obtain Governmental approval from 1974 to 1982. In 1982-1986 the preparations to the renovation continued, including producing documents and transferring collections. In 1986, the actual renovations began, 1986-1992 are the years of the first actual works. In 1992, the director Konstantin Levykin was replaced by Alexander Shkurko, under whose leadership this first stage of the renovation was finally completed in September 1997.
The SHM before the Renovation of the 1980s
WWII and Its Impact on the SHM
Burov completed his renovation in November 1937, and the halls of the first floor were finally opened to the public for the 20th anniversary celebration of the Revolution. During the following years, almost up until the outbreak of WWII on the Eastern front in June 1941, the SHM building was shared by two organisations: the SHM itself and the Pushkin Museum.405 Because of the war and the Pushkin exhibition discussed in the previous chapter, further exhibition development was again postponed. Even though some of the most valuable collections, as in many other Moscow and Leningrad museums, were evacuated, the SHM kept functioning almost without changes.406 Those items taken from the permanent exhibition were replaced with urgently produced copies; the museum staff organised lectures in different locations outside the museum, mainly in military facilities, and also launched a number of war-related touring exhibitions. As for the events at the SHM building, a series of temporary exhibitions dedicated to WWII were displayed on the second exhibition floor. According to the guest book, the fact that the museum continued to work as normal was greatly appreciated by Moscow citizens, and especially the soldiers stationed in the city.407
405 Anna Borisovna Zaks, ‘Iz istorii Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo muzeja (1917-1941 gg.)’, pp. 366- 367. 406 M.M. Denisova, «Dnevnik vojny» M.M. Denisovoj: otryvki ["War diary" by M. Denisova: excerpts]
168 The SHM building’s proximity to the Lenin Mausoleum and to the Kremlin saved it from the airstrikes, as the city took the necessary precautions. A team of architects, engineers and theatre set decorators, under the management of Boris Iofan, were responsible for removing and concealing the most noticeable features and transforming the centre of Moscow into an unrecognizable illusion of a residential area. This involved removing the church crosses and the Kremlin stars, dyeing some of the domes and roofs, and building entire ‘streets’ out of plywood.408 Lenin’s body had been evacuated to Irkutsk at the beginning of July 1941,409 however, the mausoleum was a highly discernible feature, therefore, a faux two-story building was constructed to conceal it.410 The SHM building was covered in protective camouflage. As a result, the only episode of damage occurred in late October 1941, when pressure waves from a dropped bomb shattered the windows on one side of the building.411
Despite all of the above, the SHM had to be opened on November 7th, 1941,412 when the Revolution anniversary was celebrated. Nazi troops stationed approximately 200 kilometres away notwithstanding, 413 the Government organised a military parade on the Red Square, despite its possible tactical danger during wartime. It was meant to be a symbolic event: the aim was to show the importance of the Revolution, and at the same time the strength of the Soviet army. During the parade, the main facade of the SHM building was decorated with several small banners with quotes and portraits of Lenin and Stalin.414 In his speech at the parade, Stalin referenced a number of prominent Russian military leaders of the past, such as Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy,
408 V. Hristoforov and V. Vinogradov, Lubjanka v dni bitvy za Moskvu: Po rassekrechennym dokumentam FSB RF [Lubyanka during the Battel of Moscow: secret documents from Federal Security Service] (Moscow: Zvonnica, 2002), pp. 33-36, 44-45. 409 Ju. Lopuhin, Kak umer Lenin: otkrovenija smotritelja Mavzoleja [How Lenin died: confession of the Mausoleum attendant] (Moscow: Algoritm, 2014) 410 Oborona Moskvy, S 30 sentjabrja 1941 g. po 20 aprelja 1942 g., Pervoe krupnoe porazhenie nemcev na Vostochnom fronte [Defense of Moscow, September 30, 1941, to April 20, 1942, the first major defeat of the Germans on the eastern front]
169 Kuzma Minin, Dmitry Pozharsky, Mikhail Kutuzov, and Alexander Suvorov.415 The cult of Stalin’s personality meant that every word had to be acted upon, and in 1942 the SHM staff launched several war-related exhibitions to support citizens who had not been evacuated and troops stationed in Moscow.416 While the first exhibition floor was primarily dedicated to military leaders of the past, the second floor demonstrated recent events: the victory of Soviet troops over the Nazis in Vyazma in April of that year.417 The SHM staff were later awarded the medal "For the Defence of Moscow".418 In 1943, some of the collections evacuated during the summer of 1941 were returned to the SHM. Additionally, the staff continued to collect items related to the recent war events.
The Government continued its efforts to oblige the SHM staff to include Soviet history into the timeline of the permanent exhibition, even in the middle of war. In April 1943, the People’s Commissar of Education issued a decree stating that the SHM, as the central museum of national history of the Soviet people, was required to cover the period from prehistoric times until the modern day.419 A year later, in 1944, while the SHM staff continued to develop the new permanent exhibition, Anna Karpova, the then SHM director, wrote a letter to the Government explaining that the spaces available could only host the exhibition which would cover the period up until the late 19th century. In her opinion, in order to comply with the suggested timeframe for the permanent exhibition, firstly, the entire first floor layout had to be changed, and secondly, the depth of content would suffer significantly. Thus, for instance, Karpova suggested using Hall 18 to display not only the history of Ukrainian people, but other nations as well.420 As for Hall 7, originally designed to display the Kiev period in Russian history, with a focus on the Orthodox church and Byzantine influence on the
415 Otchet za 2e polugodie 1941 goda [Report on the second half of 1941], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 684. 416 SHM, pictorial department archive 417 Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1942 g. [1942 annual report] SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 717, folios 2, 7. 418 Anna Borisovna Zaks, ‘Iz istorii Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo muzeja (1917-1941 gg.)’, p. 13 419 Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1943 g. [1943 annual report], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 748, folio 1. 420 Dokumenty o podgotovke jekspozicii po istorii SSSR (tematiko-jekspozicionnye plany, struktura vystavok i dr.) [Documents on the development of the USSR exhibition], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 778, folio 25.
170 Russian culture, it was transformed into a space to exhibit the entire two-thousand-year period of history in the European part of the USSR.421
The war was over on May 9th of 1945, and on June 24th the Victory parade was held on the Red Square for the first time;422 it would take 20 more years before it became an annual Governmental ceremony.423 During 1945, 30 halls of the SHM were once again opened to the public, and at this time the permanent exhibition covered the period from the prehistoric times until the late 1880s. Anna Zaks, then a member of the exhibition department, described them as “quilt-like”, as the elements were chronologically incoherent, predominantly because of the war-related stands. The SHM staff continued developing exhibitions dedicated to the late 19th to early 20th century periods of Russian history.424
The post-war history of the SHM was also documented by Anna Zaks. In the article published in 1961, Zaks focuses on research and educational functions of the SHM, stating that from the late 1940s soviet museology, in general, continued to promote authentic objects as the basis for any kind of activitiy within museums; therefore, the research function was considered to be the most important, compared to other functions. As for the role of the Soviet Government, in early 1945 it initiated a thorough investigation and registration of the museum collections; the SHM staff now had to follow guidelines developed by a special department within the Council of Ministers.425 During the following decade, the main activities within the SHM were devoted to the development of a paper-based collections management system. By January 1st, 1955, the museum owned 2 800 000 objects.426
421 Plany rejekspozicii arheologicheskih zalov Muzeja №№ 5–7, 1943 g. [Plans regarding redesign on exhibition halls 5-7 (Archaeology), 1943], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 2, file 448, folio 1. 422 D/f «Istorija voennyh paradov na Krasnoj ploshhadi». Fil'm pervyj [History of the Military Parades on the Red Square, Documentary] 423 V. M. Arhipov and I. P. Repin (eds.), Voennye parady na Krasnoj ploshhadi. 424 Anna Borisovna Zaks, ‘Iz istorii Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo muzeja (1917-1941 gg.)’, p. 17. 425 Ibid., p. 18 426 Irina Klushkina, Istorija GIMa [The History of the SHM], Unpublished copy stored in a private archive.
171 The 1950s: Further Spatial Changes in the Permanent Exhibition
The decade after the war was not as rich in major and systematic changes in the museum building as the 1930s. In 1948, additional labels for Halls 1-4 and 7-12 were printed, and new objects, such as coins and pieces of vases from Pontic Olbia, found during archaeological excavations were added to showcases in Hall B.427
In 1948-1949, a special commission from the Government and the museology institute visited the museum in order to assess the content of the permanent exhibition. The main identified issues were positive portrayals of the ruling class and lack of attention to important, which meant ideologically relevant to the Soviet Government, figures such as the Decembrists. Another issue was the fact that the museum still was not displaying anything on Soviet history.428 Again, museum staff were encouraged to speed up the process of embedding objects related to the 20th century history of Russia into the limited spaces of the permanent exhibition.
The inspection triggered a new administrative reorganisation, which began in 1949and involved a renovation of some of the halls on the second floor to prepare them for hosting a new exhibition (Halls 22-27, 34 and 35):429 the walls and ceilings were plastered and painted, and the minor elements of décor, such as door and window frames and radiators were painted as well.430 There were some other changes in the interior decoration, however, since there are no documents that describe the architect’s and/or artist’s decision-making process behind them, it can be assumed that these changes were not considered significant. For instance, a wall painting depicting a sunrise in 16th century Moscow was painted in Hall 13431 and doorways were replaced with new versions in Halls 17-19. In the 1950s, Burov’s decoration was removed from Halls 19 and 20 and replaced with new doorway framing. These works did not come under criticism in the 1980s, however, it is possible that this was because they were completely neutral, or because they were not considered as historically and/or
427 Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1948 g. [1948 annual report], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 885, folio 26. 428 Anna Borisovna Zaks, ‘Iz istorii Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo muzeja (1917-1941 gg.)’, 429 Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1949 g. [1949 annual report], SHM departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 910, 1949 Annual report, folios 1-2. 430 Ibid. 431 Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1947 g. [1947 annual report], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 858, folio 14.
172 aesthetically valuable compared to the original interiors of the first floor. Additionally, some minor repairs were conducted on a regular basis. Thus, for instance, in 1951 the types of tasks that were carried out were: installing a new lighting system (luminous tube lamps), replacing some of the electric wiring in the storage sections, upgrading the heating system, and repairing the passenger elevator. A number of halls had minor cosmetic upgrades that did not involve changes in the design.432
During the following decades, the SHM staff worked constantly on the possible improvements to the permanent exhibition, which included content development (updating labels and introducing new exhibits), as well as hosting temporary exhibitions on Soviet history, which otherwise could not have been included into the existing spaces. The annual reports and minutes of meetings from the period between the late 1940s and the late 1960s show that lively discussions took place regularly, and their main focus was on research and exhibition development.433 As for covering Soviet history, even though the Governmental bodies insisted on the need to fit these items into the available spaces, Anna Karpova continued to explain that introducing new topics could impair the quality of the existing layout. Thus, for instance, during an administrative board meeting on the 12th of March 1949, Karpova criticized the permanent exhibition for being too laconic and lacking necessary interpretation. The minutes of meetings contain detailed critical comments on the layout. The director focused on insufficient descriptions for historical terms: for instance, the revolt leaflets issued by Stepan Razin were called “flattering” (or “charming”, Rus. prelestnye – прелестные) letters, a term unclear to the majority of visitors that was, however, not explained on the label. Karpova also remarked upon the absence of new archaeological objects and representations of research findings. Another major issue was the lack of general descriptions that would introduce the visitors to the context in which the items on display existed, especially considering that the language of the labels was overly
432 Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1951 g. [1951 annual report], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 973, 1951 Annual report, folio 1. 433 SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, files 771, 778, 798, 824, 828, 831, 832, 858, 885, 909, 910, 940, 973, 1012, 1042, 1050, 1068, 1092, 1119, 1150, 1162, 1182, 1208, 1215, 1231, 1253, 1265, 1278а, 1288а, 1302а, 1324а, 1339а, 1345, 1356а, 1368
173 academic, thus uninteresting and hard to understand.434 According to the annual reports, some of these issues were resolved during the following years.
As for interior decoration, the main concern of the SHM staff was the second floor, where new exhibitions on the 18th -19th centuries were being developed. Annual reports and minutes of meetings do not contain detailed descriptions of interior decorations which were proposed and implemented, however, as it can be seen from Anna Zaks’ article, the designers followed Burov’s approach by introducing those architectural elements (mouldings, capitals, framing, and colour choices) that would help to visualise the historical period without dominating the original objects on display.435 As for the interiors of the first floor, there is not much information regarding any details on the works that took place there; the rare exception is the 1954 annual report, which mentions the fact that a wall painting by a famous artist Vasnetsov in Hall 2 had been restored.436
The way decisions were made regarding exhibition development is rather straightforward and clear: several departments were involved in the process, making preliminary decisions during meetings. It was the internal museum council on research whose members proposed topics to be exhibited, whereas the curatorial department suggested specific objects to be displayed, and the members of the exhibition department were responsible for structure and design. The final decisions were made during research council meetings.437 The aforementioned decision-making process has not changed since in any significant way even today.
Another source which can offer information regarding the interiors is museum guide books. According to one of them, by 1954, all 42 halls, which had been in original plans of the founders, were finally opened to the public, and the permanent exhibition covered the period from the Ancient times till the 1880s, exactly as Zabelin and Uvarov had
434 Protokoly soveshhanij pri direkcii za 1949 g. [Minutes of meetings with the Directorate for 1949 g.], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 906, Director minutes of meetings in 1949, folios 2-4. 435 Anna Borisovna Zaks, ‘Iz istorii Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo muzeja (1917-1941 gg.)’, p. 37 436 Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1954 g. [1954 annual report], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 1068, folio 32. 437 Protokoly soveshhanij pri direkcii za 1949 g. [Minutes of meetings with the Directorate for 1949 g.], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 906, Director minutes of meetings in 1949, folio 7.
174 imagined it. The guidebook is not very specific about the interiors of the first floor; for instance, in case of Hall 11, where some of the wall decorations were either preserved or renovated by Burov, the only spatial feature mentioned is that the hall is quite small and round.438
Another piece of information in the guidebook I would like to focus on can be found in the opening chapter on the SHM history: it is stated that the SHM was privately founded, whereas the Government did not provide sufficient funding. However, as it was discussed in the first chapter, it was the Government who sponsored the SHM throughout the decades, as opposed to private donations, which were rather insignificant in comparison.439 The reason why this was misrepresented could have been the political context in which the SHM functioned. All historical events, including the ones which took place before the Revolution of 1917, were analysed through the lens of a Marxist approach. The ruling classes, including the members of the tsar's family and the Government were, therefore, repeatedly criticised. There is no data available at the moment regarding the decision-making process behind the creation of the guide book, and it is possible to assume that the authors, even knowing the facts, followed the existing framework. Alternatively it is also possible, that they failed to research the financial issues which the SHM faced in the late 19th century. Financial reports were, and are, stored at the State Historical archive in Saint Petersburg (the then Leningrad Central Historical archive), and they were later introduced to the museum research community by Avram Moiseevich Razgon during the 1960-1980s. Razgon also a member of the SHM staff, dedicated his investigations to SHM history before the Revolution.440 At the same time, the authors of the guide book were objective about the matters that were not connected with the tsar and the pre-Revolution Government; for example, the lack of research done at the SHM before the Revolution, since the staff and funding were limited.
As can be seen from the discussion of the period between the 1940s and 1950s, the SHM building did not receive any particular attention, either from members of staff or from the other party – the Governmental bodies – involved in the process. The building
438 Ibid., p. 39 439 Ibid., p. 4 440 Avram Moiseevich Razgon, ‘Rossijskij Istoricheskij muzej. istorija ego osnovanija i dejatel'nosti (1872-1917 gg.)’.
175 and, more precisely, its halls were considered spaces to perform assigned functions: to educate visitors about Russian history and to promote the state ideology. Interior decorations carried out a supportive function: the priority was given to the authentic objects, whereas the interiors had become a neutral surface without any specific value of its own.
The task of including Soviet history into the permanent exhibition remained an issue up until the 1990s. This was not complicated in terms of collections, since the museum had been acquiring various contemporary items throughout its existence, but it was always difficult in terms of space: by the mid-1960s the 20th century exhibition had taken up all of the second floor. The museum also hosted temporary exhibitions that later became parts of the permanent Soviet exhibition, for instance, the “20th Anniversary of the Victory over Nazi Germany” (1965), “The Soviet People and the Active Formation of the Communist Regime” (1967), “100th Anniversary of Nadezhda Krupskaya’s Birthday” (1969), and “Half-centenary of the Soviet State” (1972).441
The Red Square as the Urban Context for the SHM
The political discourse in which the SHM operated during the 1940s and the early 1950s had a significant impact on the usage of the Red Square. In the 1920s and early 1930s, the Square was used for different types of celebrations – for both the military demonstrations and May Day parades. After World War II, both types of events continued to take place there, however, after 1968 the May Day parade was no longer held on the Square. The possible reason for this is that, in 1965, the Government introduced the Victory Day (referring to the victory of the USSR on the Eastern front of WWII) parade, celebrated on the 9th of May. Since each of these parades required significant preparations, it is possible that holding both so close in time was not realistic, and the Victory Day was given higher priority.
Therefore, all celebrations held on the square in the 1970s and the 1980s were military- oriented, namely the Anniversary of the Revolution (November 7th) and the Victory Parade. These parades aimed at displaying the strength of the Soviet army, and they
441 Irina Klushkina, Spisok vremennyh vystavok GIM s 1921 do 2002 g. [A list of temporary exhibitions hosted at the SHM from 1921 to 2002], Unpublished copy stored in a private archive.
176 were symbolic demonstrations caused by the Cold War. The SHM facade decorations for the parades have never been discussed in academic literature and can be analysed only based on the footage of the parades.442 The SHM building was the starting point of the parade on the Red Square, which explains why its facade (the one facing the Red Square) was usually decorated with banners. This is also the reason why the building appeared on the footage of every parade, behind the marching troops. The analysis of banners which were installed on the main facade of the SHM, and the GUM buildings, indicate that the SHM building had never played the principal role compared to the GUM. The main banners depicting Lenin and Stalin were usually hung on the GUM building, directly opposite the Mausoleum, from which political leaders would usually observe parades. As can be seen from in documentaries available, Lenin’s and Stalin’s portraits did not appear on the SHM facade. The SHM facade was usually decorated with ideological slogans and flags. While the size and their position varied, the most typical decoration would include three banners on the top of the main entrance, one in the middle, and two others on the sides (fig. 12). After 1965, a new type of banner was introduced – a large piece of fabric with a propagandist image, which would cover almost one third of the facade; it was located over the main entrance. It can be concluded that the SHM building continued to play a supplementary role, by providing a surface for banners to convey the Government’s message.
442 D/f «Istorija voennyh paradov na Krasnoj ploshhadi». Fil'm vtoroj [History of the Military Parades on the Red Square, Documentary, Part 2], online video recording, Youtube, 6 May 2013,
177
Figure 12. Example of a screenshot (with GUM building on the right)
Soviet Architecture and its Ideological Role
In the 1930s, the Government established a network of institutions and bodies, including the Academy of Architecture, which were responsible for research, dissemination of knowledge, development of professional standards, and verification of construction projects.443 Architects promoted Soviet ideology by implementing a variety of decorations; for instance, porticos and columns on the main facade in a pseudo- historical and imperial style. Although there are examples of the style in Saint Petersburg and other cities,444 the most prominent ones are located in Moscow: the Exhibition of Achievements of National Economy (Vystavka Dostizheniya Narodnogo Hozyaystva, VDNKh), multiple underground stations, such as Ploschad’ Revolutsii and Paveletskaya, and a group of skyscrapers known as the Seven Sisters (for example, the main buildings of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Moscow State University). Such an approach to architecture, in which every building was designed as unique, required a significant number of resources.
443 V. Shkvarikov, Sovetskaja arhitektura za XXX let RSFSR [Soviet Architecture during the 30 years of RSFSR] (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii arhitektury SSSR, 1950). 444 Volgograd, Ekaterinburg
178 After Stalin’s death, in March 1953, the Soviet system went through a transformation from a totalitarian dictatorship to a structure with more political freedoms, which was known as the Khrushchev Thaw. It lasted for approximately ten years, and several tendencies that emerged during these years should be analysed in order to examine their impact on the country and, in part, the further development of the museum system and the SHM.
First of all, the role of Stalin in Soviet history was reconsidered. In 1956, Nikita Khrushchev, the then leader of the Government,445 presented a report entitled On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences that described Stalin’s years in power as a period of terror. Stalin’s name had to be removed from the public spaces; for instance, for a number of cities and streets previously named after Stalin, new toponyms were created (for example, Stalingrad became Volgograd in 1961). In 1961, Stalin’s body was removed from the Mausoleum, where it was kept alongside Lenin’s body, and buried in the Kremlin Wall necropolis. Stalin’s name was also removed from above the Mausoleum’s entrance. Following the report, museums which had previously included Stalin’s quotes in their exhibitions, had to promptly remove them, and the SHM was no exception. According to the 1956 annual report, all the quotes and references to Stalin were removed from the permanent exhibition.446
The end of Stalin’s era also influenced the architectural practices in the country. In November 1955, the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the Council of Ministers issued a decree stating that architects must avoid unnecessary decoration and concentrate on function of buildings, rather than their form.447 The 1955 decree provided some examples on that matter: for instance, the cost of the 354-room Leningradskaya hotel could have covered the expenses of constructing a standardized 1000-room equivalent. One of the possible reasons why reducing costs of planning and construction was considered crucial was the post-war growth of population and
445 The official title was First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union 446 Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1956 g. [1956 annual report], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, File 1119, folios 32-33. 447 Postanovlenie Central'nogo Komiteta KPSS i Soveta Ministrov SSSR ot 4 nojabrja 1955 goda #1871 «Ob ustranenii izlishestv v proektirovanii i stroitel'stve» [Decree of the Central Committee KPSS and USSR Council of Ministers of November 4, 1955, no. 1871, "on eliminating redundancies in design and construction], Sovetskaja arhitektura: Stat'i i knigi o sovetskoj arhitekture, Obshhie svedenija o sovetskoj arhitekture
179 increased levels of urbanization, creating the need for affordable residential property.448 As a result, standardised blocks of flats became popular in the 1960s, and one of the types that emerged at that period was named after Khrushchev.
While modern architecture was mostly taking up industrial areas and suburbs, the changes in the city centres were less radical. Thus, one of the monumental construction projects of Stalin’s era, the Palace of the Soviets, that would have dominated the landscape of the area where it was intended to be build, was abandoned in 1958. The area was converted into a large outdoor heated public swimming pool. In some cases the local Government even banned the development in central areas. This is especially true in the case of several ancient Russian cities, such as Vladimir, Novgorod, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, where kremlins, cathedrals and surrounding territories were given the status of open-air museum complexes.449
As for the Red Square, there were no more significant spatial changes in the years that followed, except that from 1963 vehicle traffic was prohibited, making the Square a pedestrian area. Military parades, however, have been held annually without interruption since 1918. Photographs of the Red Square, taken during the 1960s to 1980s, show people queuing in front of the Mausoleum on different days and in different weather. Thus the ritual of visiting the Mausoleum discussed in the previous chapter expanded outside. It appears that while the personality cult of Stalin was criticized, Lenin remained an important figure. Considering its proximity to the area and ideological value, the SHM was put into a position where it had to participate in these rituals, specifically by hosting ceremonies for new members of the pioneer organisation.450
448 N.P. Bylinkin, A.M. Zhuravlev, I.V. Shishkina et al., Sovremennaja sovetskaja arhitektura 1955-1980 gg [Modern Soviet Architecture, 1955-1980] (Moscow: Strojizdat, 1985). 449 Marta Aleksandrovna Poljakova, Ohrana kul'turnogo nasledija Rossii: ucheb. posobie dlja vuzov [Heritage preservation in Russia: university studyguide] (Moscow: Drofa, 2005). 450 Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1960 g. [1960 annual report], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 1231, folio 43.
180 Monument Preservation Movement in the USSR and Its Impact on the SHM
Another influential post-war trend in architecture that gained momentum in the 1950s was monument preservation. It is especially important while discussing the SHM, as by the time of the renovation the building was over 100 years old.
Most of the museums in Russia are located in historic buildings, either constructed specifically for those museums or converted from former palaces, military structures, personal residences, or churches. Either the value of the structure, or its age, or both, have always meant that special measures had to be taken for proper maintenance. Modern museum workers involved in building maintenance, storage, and exhibition development operate under Government-provided guidelines on climate control, safety measures, and different aspects of renovations.451 Most of these instructions are aimed primarily at preservation. The rules that are in place at the present moment are an updated version of Soviet documents,452 but earlier recommendations on how to care about buildings of significant cultural and historical value date back to the 19th century.
After the revolution of 1917, the new Soviet Government paid significant attention to architectural monuments, which were all declared state property. First royal palaces and other real estate of the nobility and revolution-related monuments (for example, properties where Lenin resided), were nationalised, later on most of the churches and cathedrals were either destroyed or converted to new use.
As for the legislation system, it was developed rapidly, and among its main objectives one can name cataloguing, research, preservation, and rational usage. A number of decrees and instructions were released during the Soviet era, the most important being the following four:
451 Instrukcija po uchetu i hraneniju muzejnyh cennostej, nahodjashhihsja v gosudarstvennyh muzejah SSSR, 1985 [Instructions on the collection management and preservation of items stored in the USSR museums]
181 ● Resolution of the Council of Ministers N 3898 dated October 14, 1948 On measures to improve the protection of cultural monuments ● Resolution of the Council of Ministers of RSFSR453 № 781 dated June 29, 1957 On measures to improve the protection of cultural monuments and their renovation in RSFSR ● Resolution of the Council of Ministers N 1327 dated August 30, 1960 To further improve the protection of cultural monuments in the RSFSR ● 1978 USSR Law dated December 15, 1978 On protection and use of historical and cultural monuments
In Moscow, some of the areas around the Square and the Kremlin were renovated, and in some cases renovation involved destruction of older structures. For instance, in the late 1950s the Government initiated the construction of the State Kremlin Palace, a venue to host political and public events which had to be located inside the Kremlin walls. In order to make room for the palace, some of the original buildings, such as the Kremlin Armoury, were demolished. While constructing the Kalinin Prospect in 1963, some of the old buildings in the area were demolished to make space for a large road. Therefore, there was a clear contradiction between the rhetoric of the monument preservation movement, and the construction works in the city centre. It is possible that during that period there was no clear understanding of historical value, despite the new regulatory documents. However, in the 1980s to 1990s during the renovation of the SHM, building monument preservation played a bigger role, sometimes at the expense of public convenience.454
How did these tendencies – preservation of some areas and destruction of others, coinciding with the development of the new Khrushchev architectural style – influence Soviet museum architecture? By the mid-1950s there were no Government recommendations regarding the way a museum building had to look, however, there was a general framework which was followed while designing any public facility:
453 Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. 454 Marta Aleksandrovna Poljakova, Ohrana kul'turnogo nasledija Rossii, pp. 243-245.
182 clarity of form, monumental appearance, and attention to the functions the facility would be performing.455
Since the 1960s, those museums which were located in buildings constructed before the Revolution could receive monument status if they met particular requirements set by law. By the late 1970s, a systematic approach to monument preservation had been formed, which included instructions regarding every step of the process of how new monuments were added to the protected list and how they had to be maintained and used. There were general instructions at the highest level, which could be interpreted by local Governments according to their needs and contexts.
The legislation defined the term ‘monument’ as an important object, having at least one of the following characteristics: historical, aesthetic, or memorial value. Every protected item, therefore, was referred to as a ‘monument’, regardless of its nature. Particular features were specified by narrower terms, for instance, ‘a monument of architecture’ (rus. памятник архитектуры, pam’atnik arkhitektury). The number of museum buildings on the protected list was rather small: one hundred out of seven thousand in 1960.456 Out of three thousand items added to the list in 1974, only thirty were museums, including the SHM, the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, and the religious and secular structures on the island Kizhi.457
A 1978 USSR Law, dated December 15, 1978, On protection and use of historical and cultural monument stated that local Governments had to maintain objects that could not be used residentially or for offices (such as, for instance, burial grounds and mounds, defensive structures, and ruins); the other types had to be taken care of by the organisations that were occupying the premises, and particularly significant
455 M.T. Katernoga, Arhitektura muzejnyh i vystavochnyh zdanij [Architecture of museum and exhibition buildings] (Kiev: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Arhitektury Ukrainskoj SSR, 1952), p. 81. 456 Postanovlenie Sovmina RSFSR ot 30.08.1960 N 1327 "O dal'nejshem uluchshenii dela ohrany pamjatnikov kul'tury v RSFSR" [Decree of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR from 30.08.1960, no. 1327 "On further improvement of protection of monuments of culture in the RSFSR], Jelektronnyj fond pravovoj i normativno-tehnicheskoj dokumentacii
183 irregularities could result in a felony conviction for those responsible. Any kind of construction works had to be approved by the local body assigned to monument protection; in the case of buildings such as the SHM (federal monuments),458 it was the Ministry of Culture and the Council of Ministers who had the final say.
It should be also mentioned that any type of renovation and/or restoration work had to be supervised by an official assigned body, for instance, local restoration agencies. Thorough research had to be conducted before taking any action. For a museum building, it meant that after receiving the status of a monument its ability to perform functions must always be balanced against the protection requirements.
Finally, areas around the monuments had to be protected as well; those cities which had a large number of monuments were divided into special ‘protected zones’ with strict restrictions regarding any kind of construction works.
The 1978 law also included a section on the role that citizens and non-profits could play in heritage protection. It was stated that each citizen of the RSFSR had to care about monuments and contribute to their protection. As for non-profits, the All-Russian Society for Protection of Monuments of History and Culture, founded in 1966, was the most influential one; during the 1970s and 1980s, approximately 10 million people459 participated in its events and projects.
The SHM building was placed on the protected monuments list in 1974,460 and even before that, in the late 1960s, the first steps were made to investigate the historical decoration; thus, for instance, white paint on the columns in the Paradnue Seni was removed so that the original images could be uncovered and restored.461 However, according to one of the members of staff, it appears that the reason for these exploratory activities was predominantly utilitarian, as the Paradnue Seni area was rather dirty and
458 There were three types of monuments to be protected: federal, city and municipal. 459 Istorija, Vserossijskoe obshhestvo ohrany pamjatnikov istorii i kul'tury [History, all-Russian society for the protection of monuments of history and culture]
184 required quite a thorough cleaning.462 It is not clear whether the paint came off as the result of the cleaning, or whether the members of staff used the cleaning as pretext. The official reason for the cleaning was the upcoming 60th anniversary of the Revolution, and it might have been the reason why the staff focused on the walls with traditional floral ornaments, but not the ceiling decorated with the portraits of Russian tsars.
To sum up, there were several factors that impacted on the spatial evolution of the SHM: further development of museum studies, politicized Moscow urban context, and the monument preservation movement.
After WWII, Soviet museum studies were focused mainly on preservation and displaying authentic museum objects, making architecture and designing supplementary tools to support the content. Several SHM members of staff that specialized in exhibitions took part in creating the very first study guide on the subject, which laid the foundation of how to approach museums and their spaces. From the mid-1950s, when the study guide was published, museum professionals were primarily focused on such topics as storage and collection inventory issues, permanent and temporary exhibitions, as well as educational programs, rather than spaces, where these activities would take place. There were several books on museum architecture and exhibition design published in the 1950s to 1970s; they were predominantly written about exhibition spaces, rather that visitors and administrative zones, and exteriors.
In the 1950s through 1970s, the Red Square continued to play a symbolic role as a political centre of the country, where military parades took place and where Lenin’s Mausoleum continued to function as a primary location for a communist’s pilgrimage. The SHM, being an integral part of the Square, was usually used for decorative purposes: during the parades, its facades facing the Manezhnaya and the Red Square were decorated with large banners. The political climate had a significant impact on the content of the exhibitions; the SHM staff had to integrate Soviet history, and since the exhibition spaces were limited, they had to scale down the existing exhibitions to provide spaces for new objects and stories.
462 Irina Klushkina, State Historical Museum (SHM).
185 The monument preservation movement had a pronounced effect on the SHM building. After it was placed on the protected monuments list in 1974, the building had to be maintained and renovated according to a set of strict limitations provided by the Government. The building itself, now perceived as a valuable artefact, was limited in its use, and preservation of its original structures and design had to be taken into account for any kind of construction and renovation work. The SHM administration and staff faced a new challenge of finding balance between the multiple instructions from the Government on exhibition policy and the need to preserve and restore the original spaces of the building, which was not designed to store such a large number of objects and display such a vast period of history.
The Renovation of the 1980s
Since 1974 then, when the SHM building received protection status, all construction work both inside and outside the museum had to follow not only museological recommendations and museum needs, but also preservation guidelines developed by the Ministry of Culture and inspected by the local authorities. According to the reports issued in 1964 and 1979 by the local Government body responsible for construction works, the building’s infrastructure was in a rather poor condition and required renovation.463 Preliminary paperwork for the renovation was begun in 1977. In 1982, the Ministry of Culture announced the decision to renovate the building in order to open no later than 1987, to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Revolution. However, despite the fact that all official documents were issued in 1982-1983, the museum was closed only in August 1986, just a year before the expected opening. The next section explores the period between 1977 and 1986 to answer the following questions: which parties were involved in the renovation and which areas were they responsible for, why the renovation did not begin on time, and what were the major factors that influenced the renovation.
463 Dokumenty o podgotovke GIM k kapital'nomu remontu [Documents on the preparation of the SHM's renovation, 1979-1983], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, Academic secretariat, file 125, folios 51 and 53.
186 The Main Organisations Involved in the Renovation
The events in question can be partially reconstructed based on the memoir of Konstantin Levykin, the then director, published in 2000.464 The other sources that assist in that process are the documents from the museum archive and the interview with Alexander Shkurko, the director who replaced Levykin and under whose supervision the renovation was completed in 2006.465
To begin with, it is necessary to explain how decisions about various aspects of the SHM building were made. The SHM as an organisation was managed by the Ministry of Culture of the RSFSR, which reported to the Ministry of Culture of the USSR. The Ministry of Culture of the RSFSR had a special department responsible for running museums; the Ministry of Culture of the RSFSR received funding from the Ministry of Finance of the RSFSR. Decisions of such scale, as, for instance, the renovation and its funding, had to be discussed during the sessions of the Cabinet of Ministers of the RSFSR. As opposed to the Hermitage, the Tretyakov Gallery, or the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, the SHM was not declared as a museum of ‘All-Soviet’ importance, which meant that it was within the remit of the RSFSR Ministry of Culture, but not the USSR, resulting in less funding. There is no agreed upon explanation on why such a decision was made by the Government; possible reasons could be the incomplete state of the permanent exhibition or lack of focus on the more important and politically relevant content, such as the events of the Revolution. According to standard procedure, the RSFSR Ministry of Culture had to provide the SHM with the support with the paperwork, so that the renovation project could be taken to the next level. There was a special body within the RSFSR Ministry of Culture responsible for construction works in organisations managed by the Ministry.
Since the SHM is located in Moscow, the local authorities were involved in maintaining the building. Mossovet, the local Government at the time of the renovation, was responsible for providing the space required to store the collections. It was also responsible for the inspection of building infrastructure and for preparation of
464 Konstantin Grigor'evich Levykin. O zhizni muzeja v jepohu peremen. 465 Istorija muzeja [History of the Museum], State Historical Museum (official museum website)
187 documents that described the current state and the actions required to be used by another organisation to finalise the project.
All construction works on architectural monuments had to be approved by the Chief City Architect at the RSFSR Gosstroy, a body within the Council of Ministers, regardless of which organisation occupied the building.466 The Chief City Architect had to follow guidelines provided by the Gosstroy and by the local authorities. During the SHM renovation, four Chief Architects supervised the project, however, there is not much information in the documents and interviews available which would shed light on their impact on the decision-making process. Mosproekt-2, a body within the Gosstroy, was responsible for the initial renovation project documentation, so that the organisation responsible for the construction could begin the actual work. Additionally, since the SHM building was on the list of monuments of architecture, the State Inspection on Monument Preservation had to investigate the project and provide any recommendations so that the monument would be preserved.
The SHM renovation was almost the first of its kind in the USSR at that time; the SHM staff had no previous experience and were limited in the ability to find the necessary information. Even though there were some Soviet publications regarding museum architecture and exhibition design described earlier in the thesis, they could not provide members of staff with relevant practice-based advice due to a lack of such projects within the museum sector. What was perhaps even more important, and what has not yet been analysed within the Russian museum context, is the lack of communication between Governmental bodies, construction organisations, and museums. This issue will be analysed at the end of the chapter.
As can be seen from the descriptions above, a number of organisations of different types and scales of responsibilities were involved in the renovation process. Regardless of the fact that there was a clear step-by-step instruction from the RSFSR Ministry of Culture, the reality of the process turned out to be much more complicated, due to factors discussed below.
466 Konstantin Grigor'evich Levykin. O zhizni muzeja v jepohu peremen.
188 The Concept of the Renovation
During the early stages of the renovation the SHM administration formulated a set of goals which can be found in various documents stored in one of the folders at the SHM archive. These documents were produced by both the SHM and the RSFSR Ministry of Culture between 1979 and 1983. The goals included the following: upgrading the infrastructure, providing extra space for storage, temporary exhibitions, and staff, and renovating the visitor’s zones according to modern standards by adding a cafeteria, more cloak rooms and toilets. These goals could be achieved by either reconstruction of the existing building or adding new spaces by acquiring nearby facilities.467
In case of reconstruction, there were possibilities to create extra space by building more walls and a roof over the courtyards and dividing the resulting additional structure into several floors, and at the same time reorganising the existing layout of the ground floor where visitor services were located.468 Another way of providing the SHM with more space was suggested by Yuri Melentiev, the then Minister of Culture. Melentiev informed the SHM that the GUM building could be added to the SHM (organisationally, not physically) to house storage and temporary exhibitions. The note containing this information was signed by director Levykin in July 1979, making it possible to assume that he was aware of the opportunity. This note, even though its status is unclear, offers an insight into the way the Ministry of Culture viewed historical buildings in the city centre.469
At that time the GUM was one of the most popular Soviet shopping centres, which brought tourists from across the country to visit during trips in Moscow.470 Since other buildings on the Red Square, such as the Kremlin, St Basil’s Cathedral and the Mausoleum and the Central Lenin Museum were considered monuments of national significance, GUM was one of the obvious candidates for the SHM to expand into. The Ministry ignored the historical value of the GUM building based solely on its ‘ignoble’ function, which is explicitly stated in the note. The GUM building was constructed just
467 Dokumenty o podgotovke GIM k kap remontu, 1979-1983 [Documents on the preparation of the SHM for major repairs, 1979-1983], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Opis' «Uchenyj sekretariat», vol 1, file 125, folios 12-13. 468 Ibid., folio 4. 469 Ibid., folios 1-2. 470 Irina Klushkina, State Historical Museum (SHM).
189 20 years after the SHM, and had a history of hosting public events, including markets, which took place on the Square for decades before the Revolution.471
The Role of Informal Communication
In the late 1970s, Levykin, besides discussing the forthcoming renovation with his members of staff, was also introduced to the other parties involved in the process – those organisations responsible for master planning and construction. Levykin’s background in history and academic research did not prepare him for being in charge of a major construction project.472 It is unclear whether the Ministry of Culture considered this while appointing Levykin to that position.
One of the most significant challenges of the reconstruction was the fact that some of the key members of staff, including Levykin, did not have any previous experience in the area of construction work; referring to both the actual building and the renovation process, and the legal and administrative steps that had to be undertaken. Levykin was on a steep learning curve, and he found help from Alexey Alexandrov, one of his deputies. It was Alexandrov who, in 1979-1980, negotiated with potential temporary storage facilities and established contact with Mosproekt-2 to explore the details of the upcoming project.473
Alexandrov arranged several meetings with V. Vasiliev, the Head of Engineering at one of the Mosproekt-2 departments. The details of Vasiliev’s involvement in the renovation provokes a discussion on the role of the human factor at the SHM and, perhaps, even makes it possible to draw parallels between the events of the 1970s and the 1870s.
Firstly, Alexandrov was aware of the fact that Vasiliev was deeply interested in numismatics, so for their first meeting Alexandrov brought leaflets about the SHM coin collections. It seems that this was rather efficient: Vasiliev agreed to visit the SHM
471 SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental Archive, Uchenyu Secretariat, file 125, pp. 1-2 472 Levykin Konstantin Grigor'evich. 25.02.1925 – 04.05.2015, State Historical Museum (official museum website)
190 exhibitions and even the storage, and later to participate in the renovation, actively engaging with the project; indeed, he ‘kept helping up until his retirement.’474
Secondly, Vasiliev’s official duty at the SHM was running scheduled maintenance, while according to the director’s memoir, his actual role was preparing the initial stages of the renovation project. Disinformation may have been a necessary measure, as Mosproekt-2 could not join the project without an official contact with SHM, which, in turn, could not be finalized until it was approved by the RSFSR Ministry of Culture. The SHM administration decided not to follow the official procedure and wait until all formalities would be resolved, and started the preparation.475
The similarities between this situation and the formative years of the museum lie in the field of hiring decisions and relationships between the museum and the Government. Firstly, it seems that personal connections influenced hiring practices. It is unclear whether that was the case with Burov, but it was exactly what happened with Vasiliev, and a hundred years ago with Sherwood. However, Vasiliev was the head of an engineering team, making him fit for the position, regardless of the circumstances under which he was hired. Secondly, it appears that once again the Government was perceived as disinterested and unhelpful, and the decision makers at the museum tried to avoid complying with official procedures.
Preparing Documentation for Government Inspection
The museum administration, however, possibly had more reasonable grounds not to expect significant Government involvement than bias. The SHM, in the course of several years, sent the Ministry of Culture reports on the state of the main building, requesting a decision on the necessity of the renovation, which could be used to obtain financing. Since the Ministry seemingly ignored the requests, Levykin decided to approach a Governmental body on the next level, Tsentralniy Komitet. However, the result turned out to be unexpected. Levykin received a call in which he was asked to reverse the decision to fire one of his members of staff. Even though the member of staff appeared to have a mental illness, which could have resulted in potentially dangerous behaviour, Levykin agreed to hire him back, expecting to use this fact as
474 Ibid. 475 Ibid.
191 leverage in the future negotiations regarding the reconstruction.476 After several more steps, negotiations, calls and reports to the Tsentralniy Komitet, Levykin was invited to the office of the Vice Minister of Culture, V. Striganov, where he was instructed regarding the proper way of communicating with Governmental institutions, i.e. reminded about the rules of subordination. At the same meeting, the Vice Minister suggested preparing a joint document that would summarize concerns and issues regarding the renovation. He assured Levykin that, upon completion, this document would be presented to the Minister, which most likely did take place as in the following year, 1981, significant progress towards beginning the renovation was made.477
The joint report was presented at the Ministry’s session in May of 1981,478 and then forwarded to the RSFSR Council of Ministers with a proposal for the renovation. The proposal was approved by the Council almost a year later, on March 2nd, 1982, and the SHM director was in attendance at that meeting. The Minister of Culture made a presentation to the heads of other ministries and explained the reasons for the renovation; he also stated that it would require twelve million rubles to cover the expenses. It is not clear on which calculations the proposed budget was based. According to Levykin’s memoir, some of the ministers did not approve the suggested budget as the costs seemed unreasonably high.479 Some expressed the feeling that the project was misrepresented as being more complex than it should have been. As a result, the SHM received only four million roubles. The official statement that was issued after the meeting contains information regarding the responsibilities of all parties involved in the reconstruction: RSFSR Gosplan, the Governmental body responsible for the national economy, supplied the funding, Moscow authorities provided facilities to store the collections, as well as construction staff (architects and builders), the RSFSR Ministry of Culture was responsible for building documents, and the local monument preservation authority had to supervise the project and the building throughout the forthcoming years of renovation.480
476 Ibid., pp. 204-205. 477 Ibid., p. 205. 478 Ibid. 479 Ibid., pp. 206-207. 480 Dokumenty o podgotovke GIM k kapital'nomu remontu [Documents on the preparation of the SHM's renovation, 1979-1983], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, Academic secretariat, file 125, folios. 30-31; Konstantin Grigor'evich Levykin. O zhizni muzeja v jepohu peremen, p. 208
192 From a contemporary perspective, the statement and the other documents that followed appear to employ an approach that looks thorough and holistic: a project based on shared responsibility with a clear course of action. However, according to the data collected through interviews with both the participants and the decision-makers, it is apparent that the project was only straightforward in theory, whereas the overall process was complicated and, in some ways, unpredictable.
The first phase of the renovation was the design stage: preparing a set of documents which described the general functions of each of the rooms within the building, technical requirements for every part of the future infrastructure (such as HVAC), and information about the current condition of each part of the building. The first issue arose when the RSFSR Ministry of Culture stated that they would not take part in the preparatory stages, thus making the SHM responsible for drafting and editing the documentation, and in the sources available there is no clear explanation why this happened. The refusal may have been caused by the subtleties in the language of the proposal. Since the document used the word “реконструкция” (Eng. reconstruction, meaning changes in the layout of the building) and not just “ремонт” (Eng. renovation, meaning improvements and repairs with no major changes), the Ministry may have been wary about sharing the responsibility and exploring an unfamiliar topic, especially in the context of the monument preservation movement gaining momentum.481 Therefore, Levykin had to hire new members of staff and establish a construction department, which would formulate the requirement specifications so that Studio Number Two, a department of Mosproekt-2, could start working on the blueprints.482
The task was completed during 1983 and, in order to conduct onsite research, the museum was closed from April 6th until July 1st.483 The SHM was responsible for describing how the building and its parts would be used after the renovation, whereas the Studio had to bring the entire project together according to official guidelines and construction requirements. The Studio could, and did, subcontract other companies to run certain parts of the project. In the documents available there is no information regarding which subcontractors were involved at that stage, however, it is clear that they
481 Ibid., p. 209 482 Konstantin Grigor'evich Levykin. O zhizni muzeja v jepohu peremen, pp. 204-205. 483 SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Academic secretariat, file 230, folios 107-108
193 did not follow the suggested schedule and did not provide the documents on time. Levykin placed the blame on both the subcontractors and the museum staff: he admitted that the SHM did not present all the required information when expected and changed the zoning several times, which contributed to the delays.484
The next step was presenting the documents to the body responsible for monument preservation, then to the construction review panel. Later, a final budget proposal had to be formulated based on the approved documentation, after which construction companies could begin work and receive payment.
Other Issues Faced by the SHM Administration
During 1982-1983, the SHM administration was looking for facilities to move the collections to in order that construction could begin. As was analysed in the first content chapter, from the very beginning the SHM building did not specifically have any designated areas for keeping collections. Even before the Revolution of 1917, Nikolay Sherbatov, the then director, articulated that issue and sent a proposal to the City Duma asking for an additional building. In should be noted that in the early twentieth century, the size of the museum’s collection was 300 thousand items, and decades later, in the early 1990s, the total number was approximately 4 million.485
Several former church buildings were given to the SHM after 1982; since the collections had to be stored according to state guidelines, those buildings had to be renovated accordingly.486 While these buildings were being renovated, museum administration agreed to use several exhibition halls to store some of the collections, so that the basement, the first item on the construction schedule, could be kept free. These halls, which had not been used as storage facilities before, had to be upgraded and equipped with special furniture and other items to host the collections. There was a lack of workers whose help was needed to move collections from the basement to the
484 Ibid., file 230. 485 Konstantin Grigor'evich Levykin. O zhizni muzeja v jepohu peremen, p. 207 486 Dokumenty o podgotovke GIM k kap remontu, 1979-1983 [Documents on the preparation of the SHM for major repairs, 1979-1983], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Opis' «Uchenyj sekretariat», vol 1, file 125, folios 9-11; Konstantin Grigor'evich Levykin. O zhizni muzeja v jepohu peremen, p. 228-229.
194 exhibition halls, to the point that military troops were asked to join the museum team in order to provide a labour force, containers, and packing materials.
Another issue to be considered was the collaboration between the SHM departments, as well as the morale of the staff members.487 There was a lack of communication between curatorial and exhibition departments while working on the future permanent exhibition; sometimes members of staff did not share enough information about museum objects with each other, which impacted the overall exhibition planning process. At the same time, while renovations took place, the SHM staff continued their traditional museum activities, such as exhibitions and lectures. This was rather challenging, since some of the halls were occupied with collections, whereas members of staff were involved in packing, inventorying, and continuing to work on the layout of the new permanent exhibition.
It took approximately four years to complete the first stage of compiling the documents, and the building was closed in August 1986. The SHM administration continued to struggle with at least two major, albeit unrelated, issues: preparation of the remaining documents required to begin the actual renovation and the search for facilities to temporarily host the collections.488
In 1985, when the design project was revised again, this time by GlavMosStroy, a body responsible for choosing the general contractor, it was one again discovered that the project included not just renovation, but also restoration, which led to changes in the budget. As a result, the entire project had to be reconsidered and updated, which again had a great impact on the schedule: the renovations could not begin on time. It was also decided that from this point, the SHM was no longer responsible for preparing documentation; this task was assigned to the capital development department of the Mosgorispolkom, the central administrative Governmental body in Moscow.489
In the following year, the country celebrated the 70th anniversary of the Revolution, and the SHM was closed for the first time after 1941, when it stopped operations for seven
487 Konstantin Grigor'evich Levykin. O zhizni muzeja v jepohu peremen, p. 231. 488 Alexander Shkurko, interview by A. Mikhailova, digital audio file and transcription, Moscow, 25 May 2015, State Historical Museum (SHM) 489 Ibid.
195 days due to artillery damage to the building. An analysis of the list of the exhibitions organised in 1987 demonstrates that Revolution-related events were not a priority, especially compared to early Soviet years: for instance, only 6 exhibitions out of 18 organized during the year in question were dedicated to Soviet history, and in 1984 it was 9 out of 19; while in 1937 the entire permanent layout had to be changed to accommodate the events of the Revolution.490
Such a gradual process of moving away from Soviet history can be explained by the changes in political climate. In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev, the head of the Government, began admitting to the inefficiency of planned economy and slowly introduced a number of progressive reforms that are believed to be the cause of the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. The reforms, known as the Perestroika, also began the process of re-evaluating the events of the 20th century and the role of the Communist party.
After the collapse of the USSR in August 1991, planned economy was replaced by traditional capitalism, leading to privatization of most industries and services, including construction. Building companies now had independent management and were less answerable to Governmental bodies, creating new communication challenges for the SHM in the middle of ongoing problems caused by a financial crisis and lack of financing from the new Government. On August 1st of 1990, Levykin sent an official letter to the head of the Moscow Congress of People's Deputies, informing them about a number of issues the SHM faced in the late 1980s. Significant concerns Levykin expressed were connected with restoration plans that placed a strain, both on the budget and the relationship between the SHM and the construction company in charge of the project. Levykin asked the head of the Congress for support, since the construction company was answerable to the Moscow Government.491
Alongside the formation of a new democratic Government there was certain interest among different members of society towards the Imperial history of Russia and the
490 A list of exhibitions held in the SHM, compiled by Irina Klushkina. 491 Pis'mo direktora muzeja G.K. Levykina v Moskovskij sovet narodnyh deputatov o hode kapital'nogo remonta v muzee 1 avgusta 1990 [Museum Director G.K. Levykin’s letter to Moscow Soviet of people's Deputies concerning the major overhaul of the Museum, August 1, 1990], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Uchenuy Secretariat, vol. 2, file 224
196 Romanov dynasty, perhaps fuelled by a rejection of the Soviet era and its values. As the SHM had traditionally been following the suggestions of Governments, the changes in the political climate resulted in removing all Soviet items from both temporary and permanent exhibitions.
The new Government hosted a referendum that ratified the new Constitution in 1993, which, among other rights, guaranteed freedom of religion. The Church began to regain its position in society even earlier than this. In 1988, just after the 70-anniversary of the Revolution, the Church celebrated the 1000 anniversary of the events known as the Baptism of Rus', the mass baptism of people in Kiev under the rulership of Vladimir the Great. After October 1990, when the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued the law “On the freedom of religion and church organisations”,492 members of the Church were able to promote their suggestions as representatives of officially established organisations. Thus, for instance, Alexey, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, suggested making Orthodox Christmas a public holiday; his suggestion was accepted in January 1991.
The Church began reclaiming buildings and objects that were secularized under the Soviet Government and restoring those which were either dramatically transformed or destroyed during the Soviet period. The Government supported and subsidized these projects. Thus, for instance, during the 1990s, several churches and cathedrals, among them the Kazansky Cathedral near the Red Square and the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, were rebuilt on their original locations. On April 24, 1994, the president issued a decree “On returning facilities and other religious items to church organisations”, which lead to a number of conflicts between museums that were using these buildings, and preserved and exhibited the items that the Russian Orthodox church was now interested in getting back. 493
This created a precedent that came at an unfortunate moment for the SHM, as three of its additional facilities, crucial for hosting exhibitions and storing collections at the time
492 Zakon «O svobode sovesti i religioznyh organizacijah» [The Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations]
197 of the reconstruction, were former church possessions. The staff wrote an opinion column to a museum studies journal suggesting the need for a law that would provide security and integrity (a clause against retrieving individual items without serious grounds) of museum collections.494 However small the effect of this measure was, it was still important that the staff united to present their position and dared to contribute to the discussion on a problematic issue. This discussion rose again recently, as the Church is growing in importance and there has begun a second wave of reclaiming museum buildings and collections; for instance, see the ongoing discussion about the Isaakievskiy Cathedral in Saint Petersburg.
The religious buildings that belonged to the SHM were the St Basil’s Cathedral, the Novodevichy Convent (it hosted half a million of the museum’s collection items), and the Church of the St. Trinity in Nikitinov. The latter two were transferred back to the Church, while the first one is shared by the two organisations.
The museum also controlled several secular structures, such as the Krutitsy Metochion, the Museum of Decembrists, Izmaylovo Estate, and Chambers of The Romanov Boyars. These were changed ownership in the course of the 1990s and the 2000s. All of these property transfers created an unstable environment, making storage and financial planning, as well as exhibition design, significantly challenging. The Moscow Government that was supposed to provide the museum with storage solutions, failed to do so.
The SHM was interested in using the Lenin museum building. It was transferred under the ownership of the Moscow city Government in November 1993. The director, Shkurko, negotiated the possibility of using the building as a temporary storage facility with Yuri Luzhkov, the head of Moscow Government. As the result of the negotiations495, the museum was given the Moscow Mint and the Gubernskoe Pravlenie (the building which hosted the local Government for the Moscow Gubernia before the revolution). The Lenin museum building was reserved for the new Moscow Government, since they considered moving there due to the fact that it was originally
494 The letter was published in Museum magazine: 'Nel'zja dopustit' konfrontacii mezhdu muzejami i cerkov'ju' [We cannot allow confrontation between museums and the Church], Sovetskij muzej, 1(123) (1992), 6-7. 495 Alexander Shkurko, State Historical Museum (SHM), interview by A. Mikhailova.
198 (the construction was finished in 1892) designed to host the Moscow city Duma. The building’s layout was not suitable for hosting an organisation with a modern range of Governmental functions so, after a period of time, the SHM was offered the opportunity to store some of the collections there. It should be noted that there was no transfer of ownership, as there was in case of the Mint and the Pravlenie; it was only temporary storage. After a number of years, the Duma members decided that moving into this building was not feasible at all, and it was given to the SHM. These three facilities and the previously mentioned Izmailovo estate were enough to store the collections, which meant that by 1995 the main SHM building was finally prepared for large scale construction work that would take two years, and culminate in opening the museum to the public again on September 9th, 1997.
The Final Stage of the Renovation
On the 13th of August 1992, the new director, Alexander Shkurko, was introduced to the SHM staff.496 By this time, six years since the museum was closed, there was no clear understanding when it could be opened to the public again. Shkurko was well known at the SHM before. Trained as an archaeologist, he joined the team back in 1964 as a tour guide. Shkurko quit working at the museum in 1982 when he was the head of research, as he was offered the position of Vice Minister at the RSFSR Ministry of Culture. In the autumn of 1992, in an interview for a weekly newspaper Kultura (Culture), he outlined two main challenges that he was facing as a newly appointed SHM director: finding space for storage (this was discussed earlier in the Chapter 4) and completing the renovation.497
In November 1992, the SHM received the status of federal museum and was placed on a special list of protected monuments of high priority.498 This was a newly introduced term, emphasizing the importance of the institution on the whole – its traditions and collections, rather than just a building. However, it appears that neither of those had any significant impact on the reconstruction, either positive or negative.
496 Konstantin Grigor'evich Levykin. O zhizni muzeja v jepohu peremen, p. 238. 497 Aleksandr Ivanovich Shkurko, ‘Novye lica. Tjazheloe nasledstvo’ (interviewed by Evgraf Konchin), Kul'tura: Obshhenacional'naja ezhenedel'naja gazeta, 25 (6853) (31 October 1992), p. 2. 498 Ukaz Prezidenta RF ot 30 nojabrja 1992 g. N 1487 «Ob osobo cennyh ob"ektah kul'turnogo nasledija narodov Rossijskoj Federacii» (s izmenenijami ot 26 nojabrja 2001 g.) [Decree of the President on the most valuable heritage]
199
In November 1994, the President, Boris Yeltsin, issued decree № 2073, allocating resources and recommending special measures for the 850th anniversary of Moscow that would take place in September 1997.499 A state commission was formed so that they could begin the arrangements; among other duties, the commission was responsible for compiling a list of buildings that had to be either constructed or renovated as part of the preparations. All the funding had to be provided by both the federal and Moscow city Governments.500
Moscow Government began preparations even before the presidential decree was issued. In June 1994, it published a document On preparations for the 850th anniversary celebrations,501 which stated that the upcoming celebrations were considered both of local and national importance. Each okrug (administrative division) of the Moscow city Government had to be prepared for the celebrations in the form of organizing public events and renovating those venues and city areas which would host the festivities.
Even though the document was issued before the presidential decree, it already contained a list of buildings and city areas that the Government believed to be in need of renovation, among them the Red Square, the SHM, the Voskresensky gates, and the former Lenin museum.
On February 28, 1996, the Government issued a decree aimed at providing resources and outlining tasks for the parties involved in order to celebrate the 850th anniversary of Moscow.502 The SHM was among other buildings to be renovated and restored, however, since the Ministry of Culture did not provide funding, which it had to receive from the Ministry of Finance upon the latter receiving Government approval, the works
499 Ukaz prezidenta RF ot 09.11.94 N 2073 o prazdnovanii 850-letija osnovanija Moskvy [Decree of the President of the Russian Federation from 09.11.94 N 2073 on the commemoration of the 850 anniversary of Moscow], Zakony Rossii < http://lawrussia.ru/texts/legal_524/doc524a973x600.htm> [Accessed 1 June 2017] 500 Ibid. 501 O podgotovke k 850-letiju osnovanija Moskvy (utratilo silu s 10.12.2016 na osnovanii postanovlenija Pravitel'stva Moskvy ot 22.11.2016 N 772-PP) [On the preparations for the 850th anniversary of Moscow (lost effect from 10.12.2016 on the basis of the decision of the Government of Moscow from 22.11.2016 N 772-pp)]
200 at the museum, which at that point had been in progress for two years, almost stopped. As a result of the lack of financing, the SHM was sued by the company in charge of the renovation, Mospromstroy, for the amount of five billion rubles.503 The media of the time predominantly portrayed the museum as the victim of poor Government policies on culture; another opinion voiced in Moskovskaya pravda interpreted the lawsuit as the company’s attempt to raise the awareness of the Government and the public of the problem.504
The museum lost in court, and only then the Government provided sufficient funding to complete the first part of the renovation. It appears that this was the result of Alexander Shkurko approaching Victor Chernomyrdin, the then head of the Government. Chernomyrdin was invited to visit the museum and see the scale of the reconstruction by himself. Knowing the heads of the construction companies, Chernomyrdin was able to negotiate, as well as provide the funding required.505
Additionally, as a result of the negotiations between the SHM administration and Yuri Luzhkov, the head of Moscow’s Government, the official opening ceremony of the SHM was included in the anniversary celebration programme.506 The ceremony, attended by Prime-Minister Chernomyrdin507 whose assistance made it possible, took place on September 9th, and the public was able to visit the museum beginning September 10th. The SHM administration devoted considerable efforts to the renovation of the first exhibition floor and the Paradnue Seni. During summer of 1997, 11 halls including Halls 1-8 and Halls A, B, C, as well as Paradnue Seni were restored and renovated, and a special exhibition aimed at showcasing the most important archaeological collections and valuable items was designed. The opening also unveiled the newly rebuilt Voskresensky gates, which were donated to the museum and could be used as both exhibition space and a passage to the administrative offices now located in the former Moscow Mint. The exterior part of the building was once again decorated with the golden figurines of eagles and unicorns crowning the towers in July and August
503 Aleksandr Ivanovich Shkurko, ‘Interview’ (interviewed by Marina Ovsova), Moskovskij komsomolec, 248 (17.510) (31 December 1996), p. 3. 504 Rjadom s Kremlem pogibaet istorija [History is dying near the Kremlin), Moskovskaja pravda newsparer, 11 February, 1997, № 5 (123). 505 Alexander Shkurko, State Historical Museum (SHM). 506 Ibid. 507 Sergej Hripun, ‘Istoricheskij muzej priotkrylsja’, p. 5.
201 of 1997.508 The original pieces were lost or destroyed and had to be crafted again. A separate ceremony was held to commemorate the unveiling of the figurines and it was attended by the mayor.
The members of the museum staff that remained there at the time of the renovation, Irina Belozerkovskaya, the head of archaeological department, and Irina Klushkina, the museum archive keeper, describe the entire process as highly disorganized, hasty, inconvenient, and, as a result, potentially dangerous for the exhibits.509
One of the most meaningful findings came out of an interview with Belozerkovskaya. She disclosed that some of the large exhibits, for instance, the Taman sarcophagus, were kept at one of the exhibition halls covered with protective materials. Even though museum keepers like herself came to the main building every day in order to inspect the remaining objects, they were not able to protect them properly. One day workers from the construction company removed the covering material and put paint buckets onto the lid of the sarcophagus, the part that had been damaged during WWII and had been restored once before. As a result, it was splattered with paint, which Belozerkovskaya and her colleagues spent the following days removing, trying to preserve the integrity of the item. In the interview, she mentioned that other situations which resulted in damage to museum exhibits occurred, but did not provide further details.
As it can be concluded from Belozerkovskaya’s comments, workers did not pay enough attention to the museum exhibits, and the way they performed their duties did not meet the expectations of the SHM staff. The reason for that is not clear; in her interview Belozerkovskaya did not share any thoughts regarding possible reasons. They may have not been properly instructed on how to deal with the museum building while there were still some remaining items. It is also possible that they were not familiar with the importance of the museum and its collections, whereas museum staff did not know how such projects were usually carried out. As a result, the situation was rather dramatic, and it was quite challenging to find a compromise. Belozerkovskaya added that the same
508 Elena Martova, Prazdnik. Istoricheskij muzej vozvrashhaetsja k ljudjam [Celebration. Historical Museum returns to people], Delovoj mir, 30 (121) (8-11 August 1997), p. 9 509 Irina Belozerkovskaya, interview by A. Mikhailova; Irina Klushkina, interview by A. Mikhailova.
202 workers were also involved in reconstructing the Kazan Cathedral located nearby, and it was obvious that their focus was split and the crew appeared unreliable.
While Belozerkovskaya mainly discussed the exhibition halls, Irina Klushkina focused510 on the conditions in which the remaining members of staff had to perform their work duties. For instance, the fact that they were not provided with even temporary facilities such as a bathroom, electricity, or running water. She did not provide many further details and emphasized that it was an unpleasant topic. As it can be seen from these two descriptions, the conditions in which the renovation took place were rather severe, both in terms of the psychological climate, as well as the building’s capabilities as a work environment.
Only a few aspects of the renovation discussed during the interviews were perceived as positive, and one of those was the role of the SHM director Alexander Shkurko. His knowledge and passion, according to Belozerkovskaya, had a considerable impact on the overall process and served as a driving force. The interviewees emphasized that Shkurko was an experienced museum worker, as throughout his career at the SHM he had a chance to work in different departments and was, therefore, intimately knowledgeable about such areas of museum life as exhibitions, collection care, and guided tours.
Some of the particular choices made during the renovation should be discussed as well. When white paint was removed from the walls and ceiling of the Paradnue Seni, it became visible that some of the tsars’ portraits were missing. Some of them were found in the Pictorial department storage, whereas others had to be recreated by restoration specialists. From that time, the main doorway from the Red Square has been used for special events and ceremonies only, such as the President or Prime Minister visits. The visitor’s entrance was relocated to the side facade, just near the Voskresensky gate. It was stated that the decision to stop using the Paradnue Seni as the main entrance was made for preserving the paintings.511 There is, however, an unconfirmed rumour among museum staff that it was an additional security measure requested by the President’s administration: a line near the entrance could pose a potential threat or be a target. It
510 Irina Klushkina, State Historical Museum (SHM), interview by A. Mikhailova. 511 Ibid.
203 would make sense in the context of the ongoing Chechen military conflict and multiple terrorist attacks in Moscow in the previous year.
According to the original 1880s project, there were two inner yards, which were used for delivering various goods and materials. During the last renovation both were covered with roofs, and the additional spaces created through this process have since been used as a visitor zone with a ticket office, cloakrooms, toilets, a lecture hall, and a café. Since the entrance was relocated, it was no longer possible for visitors to follow the original scenario of viewing the halls of the first exhibition floor in a particular pre- planned order. Moreover, the visit now began in formal spaces that did not share the general tone and atmosphere of the museum. Visitors have to move through four ‘thresholds’ before entering the Paradnue Seni; these thresholds are the ticket office, the strict and thorough security control (this is managed by local Government, not by the SHM), the ticket control, and finally the cloakroom. This route usually takes approximately 15 minutes, and since visitors can encounter some difficulties along the way and be possibly treated with mild disrespect by some members of staff, the impression of the original Paradnue Seni could be distorted.
According to the original scenario, visitors entering the Paradnue Seni from the Red Square found themselves under the portraits of the ancient Russian dukes placed in chronological order, therefore, they would literally be walking through Russian history. After the renovation, the space was entered from the opposite end, and today visitors see the last portrait, Alexander III and his wife, and may view the other ones in the wrong order or not view them completely, as the signage invites them to proceed to the exhibition halls, not to remain in the Seni area.
As for Halls 1-8, they were restored according to the original design implemented in the formative stages; this became possible during the research stage as photographs of the pre-revolution exhibition layout were found in museum storage.512 What should be stressed here, however, is the fact that since history as a science discipline has developed significantly since the early 20th century, the SHM could not blindly copy the content and design of the pre-revolution exhibition. As a result, Halls 1-8 and A, B, C
512 Ibid.
204 after the restoration looked not entirely the same as in the early 20th century. Two large- scale paintings by Henryk Siemiradzki, which depicted scenes of traditional burial rituals and military activities in the pre-Christian Ancient Rus, originally placed in Hall 4, remained in Hall 8. The second doorway from Hall 8, which symbolised fragmentation and the eventual decline of the Kievan Rus’ was intentionally blocked, possibly to increase the amount of showcases. These decisions appear especially significant in the context of the previously discussed Voskresensky gate addition, as these design solutions were outside the plans of the founders and could not be explained by a simple strategy of reverting to the early 20th century organisational paradigm. Therefore, the entire project, albeit officially described as a revival of the original museum, may have been just a major renovation caused by the general wear and tear of the building and increased ergonomic needs of the visitors. The changes in the decoration appear to be a part of the popular trend of the time, but were not entirely necessary or based on historical science or architectural theory.
The reversal of the design was strongly supported in the media, and the communist Government’s actions were condemned, reinforcing the stereotype of Burov’s work as sanctioned vandalism. Importantly, these were generic accusations, and Burov’s position was never explained, moreover, his name was never mentioned, and Sherwood, on the other hand, was presented as a prominent architect.513 Media coverage of the opening ceremony also included discussions on the need for extra spaces to store collections (at that time, the former Lenin museum building was shared by the SHM and Moscow City Duma), and the museum’s plans for the near future, which were mainly about festivals, educational activities, souvenirs, and publishing initiatives. According to the proposed plans, the Paradnue Seni was going to be used as a space for concerts and public programmes.514
513 Marina Ovsova, Prizrak v centre Moskvy [Ghost in the center of Moscow], Moskovskij komsomolec, 35 (22 February 1997), p. 4 514 Aleksandr Ivanovich Shkurko, ‘Interview’ (interviewed by Natal'ja Zimjanina), Vechernij klub, 34 (1257) (11-17 September 1997), p. 15; Sergej Hripun, ‘Istoricheskij muzej priotkrylsja’; Tat'jana Ryhlova and Jurij Arpishkin, Otkrytie muzeja: randevu s istoriej [The opening of the Museum: Rendez-vous with history], Kul'tura, 36 (7096), (18 September 1997), p. 1.
205 Summary
The main focus of this chapter is the major renovation of 1986 to 1997 and the spatial changes that were made due to a number of factors discussed in the following paragraphs. The renovation was not the only change that occurred to the museum’s real estate: three buildings originally owned by the Russian Orthodox Church were returned due to the changes in the political climate, whereas three new ones were transferred under the museum’s jurisdiction as a result of negotiations with Moscow authorities – the old Mint, the former City Duma, and the newly constructed Voskresensky gate. Since the mid-1990s these spaces have been in use as offices, storage, and for temporary exhibitions.
It was the first time in the SHM’s history when the whole building was renovated, not just particular parts of its infrastructure or interior design. The construction works included upgrading the entire infrastructure, restoration of the interiors on the first exhibition floor, as well as improving the ergonomics of the visitors’ zones. Compared to the previous spatial changes discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the renovation in question was much more complicated in terms of management and implementation, since a number of parties, apart from the SHM staff and architects, were involved in the process. The parties actively involved in the process were the following: the SHM administration and the members of staff; the Moscow city Government; the monument preservation authority; construction companies; the Ministries of Culture and Finance (both on the local, RSFSR, and federal, USSR, levels); and various Governmental bodies responsible for Government inspection. Each of these parties contributed to the renovation. By looking closely at the primary sources, which included the SHM annual reports, minutes of meetings, and notes, as well interviews with the members of staff, it is possible to trace how these parties communicated with each other, and what impact they had on the project.
The need for the renovation was clearly articulated by the SHM administration in the late 1970s. Even though the RSFSR Ministry of Culture promoted and supported the renovation on a Governmental level, it took a significant amount of time before the renovation actually began in August 1986, and it was finished because of the upcoming
206 celebrations of Moscow’s anniversary, not because of the importance of the museum itself. There are several factors that influenced the timescale of the project.
The SHM administration and staff did not have any previous experience in running construction projects of such a scale, therefore it took time to establish communication between the parties involved and acclimate to the way such projects were usually carried out. Some of the business communication had to be conducted outside the proper channels, and the presence or absence of personal connections played a significant part in the efficiency of the process. For instance, the director found a way to connect with the mayor Yuri Luzhkov and the Prime-Minister Victor Chernomyrdin and get them involved in the process.
The SHM building was put on the protected monument list in 1974, increasing a number of limitations on any kind construction works in such a way that would have made the changes of the 1930s completely impossible. The monument preservation movement became influential in the late 1970s and especially the 1980s, creating an atmosphere of citizen involvement. It was also the period when the Russian Revival style has come into focus in academics, and several articles on the architectural features of the SHM were published. Based on all of the above, it was decided to conduct not just a renovation, but also a restoration of the interiors on the first floor, which markedly increased construction costs. For unknown reasons, but possibly because of the increase, the RSFSR Ministry of Culture stopped developing the necessary construction paperwork, placing the responsibility on the unqualified SHM staff, which led to major delays.
Another factor to consider is the collapse of the USSR in 1991, leading to a new shift in the interpretation of the country’s history, now more inclined to emphasize the importance and legacy of the Imperial period rather than the Communist one. The spatial changes that were caused by this new vision influenced both the interior and the exterior of the SHM building, as well as the urban environment of Moscow and other Russian cities. In case of the SHM exterior, eagles and unicorns, which had been removed from the towers in 1935 and destroyed, were recreated and returned to their original positions on July 30th, 1997. The renovation initiated by the mayor Yuri Luzhkov to prepare Moscow for its 850th anniversary in September 1997, impacted a
207 major part of the city centre, including several buildings in close proximity to the SHM, for instance, the Voskresensky (also known as Iberian) gate and chapel as well as the Kazansky Cathedral. The gate became a part of the SHM, serving as a pass way between the main building and the newly acquired spaces of the Mint; the extra space for temporary exhibitions and tour guides offices.
The decision to revert to the decorations suggested by the museum founders created an incongruity between exhibition content and the appearance of the interiors on the first exhibition floor. Even though all the items that depicted Soviet history were transferred back into storage to only be occasionally showcased during temporary exhibitions, the rest of the collections on display were still placed according to the newest findings of archaeological and historic science that differed from those of the late 19th century.
According to the original design of the late 19th century, the content of each exhibition hall had to be supported with relevant decorations so that it would be possible to recreate the atmosphere of a certain historical period. The original halls were mainly dedicated to particular lands and cities and their role in Russian history (Kiev, Novgorod, Vladimir, Moscow), whereas the current layout is more generalized. Thus, for instance, Halls 7 and 8, originally dedicated to Kievan Rus, now focus on Slavic tribes and the formation of Rus as a state. The former Novgorod Hall is now aimed at providing information about life in an ancient Rus city. The incongruity is obvious only to the professional eye; however, the fact that these artistically interpreted decorations serve as an environment for exclusively authentic items makes the need for restoring the interior questionable.
Due to its historical and cultural value, the entrance zone known as Paradnue Seni whose interiors were also restored, changed its original function. From 1997, when the museum was opened to the public, the Seni has been used as a space for official events, such as opening ceremonies, concerts, and temporary exhibitions. The entrance from the Red Square has been closed since 1997; it can be only used according to its original function for very special occasions, such as, for instance, visits of the members of the Government or other important guests. The official reason to close the main entrance is the need to preserve wall and ceiling paintings, however, a popular opinion among the members of staff is that it was done due to its proximity to the Kremlin and special
208 security protocols. Thus, for instance, the Red Square can be closed to the public at any time without prior notice, and as a result the SHM, as well as St Basil’s Cathedral, would be inaccessible as well. At the same time, since the Red Square is used for a number of public festivities, as well as military parades, it can be closed for preparations for those events, and again the SHM can be closed or access to it can be limited. During military parades, the main facades of the SHM, GUM and Lenin’s Mausoleum are still used for decorative purposes – large visible banners are hung on their facades during the annual Victory Day Parade.
209 Chapter 7: Conclusion
This research set out to explore the complex relationship between the State Historical Museum as a facility and its physical (architectural) form in order to contribute to the modern understanding of museum architecture, and share Russian museum practices with the international academic community. The research was developed through a microhistory with focus on decision-making and small-scale change and undertaken in full awareness of the significance of space in contemporary museum studies.515 This was done with help of a set of basic facility management principles that view a museum as a well-managed physical resource, which requires strategic decision-making and creative planning and through which organisational mission and values might be made tangible.
This very particular focus has proved productive and led to one of the first, and perhaps most fundamental, findings of the research: for a large proportion of the Museum’s history, the connections between the strategy, the staff and the space were ignored, with one of these components always perceived as more important than the others. Unfortunately, people – both the staff and the visitors – have never been the top priority for the museum. An organisation formed as a result of such an attitude is unlikely to be rich in personal initiative and can be marked by poor communication between departments.
At a certain point, in the early Soviet years, the strategic planning was at the core of most decisions made at the Museum. Despite its poor reputation in academic literature and the media, this period was quite possibly the most productive in the history of the Museum. The Museum was assigned the function of educating visitors about Russian history, and an attempt was made to adapt the existing layout for better functionality. Architecture was understood as both a science and an art, and the person responsible for the changes, Andrey Burov, was one of the most highly-educated Soviet specialists of his time. There was a certain element of Government involvement, but at this stage its influences were mostly positive, as it created a field in which the museum and the staff could develop without over-controlling the sphere. In the later years, the Soviet Government did excise excessive
515S. MacLeod, ‘Image and Life: museum architecture, social sustainability and design for creative lives’ in S. Greub (ed.) New Museums: Intentions, Expectations, Challenges, Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2017.
210 control and insist on introducing Marxist concepts across the museums’ exhibitions, however, at the SHM in the 1930s this was definitely not the case.
As neither the staff, nor the strategic plan, were at the core of the Museum’s life for the majority of the time, the only element left is the building, which indeed was the primary focus of the decision-makers and researchers. Their insistence on the exceptional value of the building and its architecture has created a powerful institutional myth that has spread outside the walls of the Museum as well. It is possible that as a researcher I was drawn to this case, as I was also under the influence of those who perceived the building as a unique work of art. Only in the process of gathering data was I able to uncover some of the effects that this narrow focus had on the institution over the years.
This increased attention to the building, especially its physical appearance and the equivalent lack of attention to strategic planning and the human factor, could be observed as early as the design and construction stages. Most of the discussions revolved specifically around the founders’ interpretation of the Russian style and its symbolic role and, therefore, the decorative features of the future building. Little, if any, consideration was given to its efficiency as a facility. The resulting space, albeit aesthetically pleasing, was as a result, limiting in terms of future growth and lacked basic functional zones such as storage. The aesthetic properties of the interiors were not the primary focus of this research, however, it should be noted, that they have come under criticism from different art historians on various grounds. For instance, one critic pointed at the low quality of the ceiling portraits in the Paradnue Seni, especially at the poor resemblance of some of the tsars.
Another point that was discussed in detail in this thesis was the implementation of architectural replicas to decorate spaces and patterns that had never been used as elements of traditional Russian buildings. It is possible that the debate about the authenticity reflects the general lack of interest in the audiences that was evident throughout the years of the Museum’s existence. Instead of debating the practical use of the building and ergonomics, they focused on the issues that concerned primarily historians and art historians, and would hardly be noticeable by a regular member of the audience.
This prioritizing of the building repeated itself in the late 20th century, intensified by the monument protection movement that assigned special value to historic objects and the
211 established institutional mythology, which conceptualized the original interiors as outstanding, and the Soviet changes as unnecessary and inferior. It would be easy to assume that this rejection of everything Soviet-related was a trait of the era, of democratic Russia re-evaluating its past, but it may have been caused by internal reasons as well. Throughout its Soviet years, the Museum consistently resisted initiatives regarding introducing this historical period into its narratives. The attitude towards the period may have impacted the position on the Soviet spatial transformations. This position – ignoring the complexity and the achievements of the Soviet period – has been reinforced by the Museum and the media multiple times since then. In turn, it led to the formation of a strong narrative that is almost prohibitive to a critical approach to the spatial transformations of the Museum throughout its existence. The formative years have to be understood as exceptionally good, the soviet renovation ‘Government-mandated vandalism’, therefore reverting to the original choices in the 1990s can only be described as doing the right thing.
The choice is often presented as a more favourable one, out of a dichotomy of either keeping the changes or removing them, failing to mention that this created a certain incongruity between some of the exhibition content and the decorations. For instance, Halls A, B, and C, which were originally dedicated to the Greek colonies on the Black Sea and the role of Byzantium in the formation of the Russian state, today are used for exhibiting golden items from the SHM collection. The reversal to the original layout meant refusing to exhibit items on Soviet history, as it would not be possible in the available spaces, therefore, at the modern stage there is a dissonance between the title of a museum of national history and the fact that only part of that history is represented.
Moreover, during the last renovation in 1986-1997, the Museum was in a position where it could have formulated a new, possibly more ambitious spatial plan that would affect the layout and the interiors. It was also possible to undo only some of the Soviet changes, for example, restore only some of the ceiling portraits, in order to show the public, the complexity of the Museum’s journey over the years. Much like some of the amber items in its collection, the Museum appears to be static, frozen in time. The reversal of the Soviet renovations, considering everything discussed above, was a safe choice, a strategy of avoiding conflict that is visible in some of the other elements of the modern Museum, such as placing strictly factual information on labels that accompany polarizing items; for instance, Ukrainian artefacts. The temporary exhibitions represent inoffensive topics,
212 mostly the history of fashion or furniture. It appears that the Museum is not processing its own history, which raises the question of whether it is equipped to represent the diverse and tumultuous history of the entire country. It is unclear whether it is a general unwillingness to initiate and embrace change, or the effects of the ritualized and domineering space of the SHM’s surroundings, or the result of years of Soviet instruction-based management style, but the Museum in 2017 appears to have no clearly articulated strategy and, therefore, does not take risks with its projects or space.
Being located in the very heart of Moscow, the SHM, from the very beginning, was influenced by the urban context comprised of the well-established structure and functions of the Red Square. The exterior decoration had to follow the style of the buildings on the Square, primarily St Basil’s Cathedral. The Red Square has always been used for various kinds of public festivals and Government supported events, such as military parades, and even though the SHM building has never participated in these events directly, it was (and still is) regularly used as a space that can be decorated according to the event taking place. The Museum and its interests, such as public engagement, sometimes did not correspond to the needs of the Governmental bodies that use the Red Square. For instance, while preparing for the military parade on the 9th May, the Red Square is closed during the day, which means that the SHM has to close as well. Looking back at the exterior transformations, such as removal of the golden figurines from the Museum’s towers and their return during the last renovation, it can be assumed that the SHM building, even though protected today due to its monumental status, is still under risk of being transformed because of other bodies’ wishes, not due to the Museum’s mission and strategy.
Another finding of the research is a consistently limited ability of museum administration to plan for the future of the institution on multiple levels, from the structure of the building, to the budgeting. The spatial choices resulted in a lack of storage and an inflexible layout that would continue to have an impact on the building’s functionality until the present time. The expectation of donations and the public’s support in the form of what we know today as crowdfunding, began a chain of financial decisions that would require a Government bailout. Starting with the construction phase, this created a repetitive pattern of the Museum being provided with financial or other kinds of assistance with the condition that it would complete a certain major project, usually building-related, by the time of a large celebration. The construction and interior decoration had to be completed by Alexander
213 III’s coronation, Andrey Burov’s renovation was due for the 20th Revolution anniversary, and the Museum was under obligation to finish the last reconstruction for Moscow’s 850th birthday, which demonstrates that the planning has continued to be driven by external factors right up to today.
It is unclear what factor, or combination of factors, contributed to the issues and what museum staff could have undertaken to address this. In many of the situations described on the pages of this thesis, a lack of experience may have been a stumbling block, which appears to be quite logical, as spatial transformations usually occur only once in a staff member's career. The overall complexity of the building, the Museum as a facility and the renovation process, possibly accompanied by excessive optimism, may have also been at fault. It appears that exactly those elements that might have eased the volatile nature of such major events as a renovation were missing: self-awareness of the institution, a coherent strategy, and understanding of the proper communication channels and processes required for the Museum to function on a daily basis.
While researching the three periods in question, detailed in this thesis, it became clear that the museum administration did not pay enough attention to professional communication. A lack of professional communication had a dramatic effect on the foundation stage, when the Committee failed to conduct preliminary research on examples of existing museum practices, either local or foreign. They also did not consult the Polytechnic Museum committee, who were available and were working on a project of the same scale and faced similar issues. As it was discovered during the literature review stage, there were sources on museum management published before and during the foundation of the SHM, including some items in the Russian language; however, considering the educational background of the committee members, it would have been possible for them to familiarise themselves with foreign resources as well. The reason why the Committee did not take advantage of any of these opportunities is not clear, however, it is possible that they chose to focus on those areas which were familiar to them, such as archaeology and history, in the case of Ivan Zabelin, or Russian style, in the case of Vladimir Sherwood. It is possible that this focus prevented them from approaching the museum in a holistic way, resulting in an institution lacking a clear mission, strategy, and, as a result, led to a lack of interest from the public and from the Government. It also seems that there were issues with communication, not only between the committee members and outside professional world,
214 but between the committee members themselves due to internal conflict. This led to some of the figures, such as the architect Sherwood and a member of the founding committee Chepelevsky, leaving the project before it was completed.
Despite the view of the Soviet era as a time of purposeful isolation and authoritarian institutions, during the first renovation of 1937 there were multiple improvements in the SHM’s approach to establishing communication. The architect in charge, Andrey Burov, made efforts to acquire as much experience as possible, and used the knowledge and inspiration of his American and European trips in the SHM project. The SHM administration clearly articulated the goals of the renovation, and members of staff involved in it were able to establish open communication with Burov, thus making the process as effective as possible.
However, the renovation of 1986-1997 was conducted in a manner that was accompanied by issues with professional interchange, meaning that the lines of communication between staff members were practically closed off. In addition to these problems, barely any attempts were made to refer to other museums’ experiences. The administration and staff members’ failure to explore foreign experiences could have been based on the results of the long period of Soviet isolation, as well as a belief that they would not be relevant to their contexts, both politically and culturally. At this point, there were certain irregularities in how the Museum communicated with other parties, meaning that they often had to use improper channels to achieve their goals, which could be attributed to the effects of later Soviet bureaucracy. The research has shown how clearer professional communication between those working at the Museum and their colleagues, both at the institution and outside its walls, produces efficient high-quality work, even in difficult contexts. The level of professionalism achieved in the 1930s is worth examining further.
An important aspect of the discussion on professional communication and professionalism is the role that the architect plays in the creation and transformation of museum spaces and how his or her contribution is perceived by contemporaries and historians. Within the SHM institutional narrative there is a tendency to inflate the importance of the architect from the historical point of view and diminish it while exploring the more recent events. However, the factual position of the architect depended on the specifics of the project and at every step of the museum’s existence his
215 voice was only one of several in the decision-making process. This leads me to believe that the figures of Vladimir Sherwood and Andrey Burov were mythologized, one with positive connotations, the other one with negative ones, and the scope of their actual contributions and the quality of their design solutions possibly need to be reassessed.
Another factor that had a significant effect on SHM spatial transformations was the involvement of federal and local Government. From the very beginning, Moscow City Duma supported the SHM, by providing it with a piece of land on the Red Square and later with its own former building. Moreover, during the last renovation it was the Moscow mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, who found ways to provide financial support to the SHM so that the first stage of the renovation could be completed before the 850th anniversary celebrations. As for the Federal Government, it was interested in the SHM during parts of the Soviet period, when the SHM was considered a tool for promoting state ideology and educating the public about the history of the country. During this time the Museum received enough support and members of staff were informed about their roles in the processes. However, sometimes this way of perceiving the Museum as a political tool led to situations in which the Museum’s interests and needs were not taken into account. For instance, in the case of the Pushkin exhibition in 1937, which postponed the creation of the permanent exhibition on the second floor. During the last renovation, the leading role in the process was given to construction companies, which were not interested in the SHM’s requirements and resources, and it was the personal involvement of the Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin that helped to get the support from the federal Government.
Most museums in Russia are primarily state-funded and thus depend on the state cultural policies; they are obliged to follow certain patterns, such as, for instance, taking part in celebrations of particular dates. On the one hand, support from the state provides museums with the opportunity to focus on research and public engagement, rather than on fundraising. On the other hand, the economic situation has constantly changed, limiting the possibilities of Government involvement and, perhaps, shifting priorities. This has, in turn, forced museums to introduce new methods of fundraising, which had led to the need to find a delicate balance between the Government's tasks and the reality in which museums operate.
216 Exploring the specifics of the Museum as an organisation required an administration- focused framework, which led to referring to some concepts and theories of facility management. Facility management is a well-defined practice-based approach that insists on viewing museums as organisations, but nevertheless values academic research as part of the decision-making process. This particular research did not operate with the specific terms and concepts of facility management for two reasons. Firstly, it would be unjustified to do so, as most of the professionals whose work is examined here could not realistically have had access to the facility management materials, because of either chronological or geographical constraints. Secondly, it seemed more productive for the research to distil the core principles of approaching a museum from a facility management perspective than to measure the performance of the staff against a particular management system, of which there are many.
What was, therefore, taken from the facility management literature is a holistic attitude that conceptualizes the goals of the institution and the strategy that is formulated to achieve them; the staff and the space as a responsive mutually-affecting system. The development of the SHM was explored with regard to all three components – strategy, staff, and space – with a specific focus on the delicate balance between them at each stage of the Museum’s existence. It was also assessed how, following or failing to follow other key facility management principles, such as importance of thorough research before every endeavour and effective communication between all involved parties, impacted the functioning of the institution.
Following this framework was one of the biggest challenges of conducting research, as it was always tempting to judge the experiences of the past from the modern ‘omniscient’ position or, similarly to some previous work done by other academics, oversimplify the interpretation of the decisions made at the Museum as purely ideological. The latter would feel particularly natural in the Russian context, as there is an obvious correlation between three stages of the Museum’s development and three major transitions in the life of the country. Equating the underlying reasons of specific events to the established ideology of the time can create considerable potential for superficiality and bias depending on the author’s political beliefs. While the three periods in the institution’s history are, in fact, significantly different, only a part of these differences can be explained by direct intervention of the Governments of the time. Some changes may have been caused by the
217 political climate indirectly, however, a large proportion, it seems, stemmed from what can be described as the human factor: professional expertise, management, communication, and artistic views. While the structure of this thesis follows the traditional trichotomy of the imperial, Soviet and modern periods, it has nevertheless attempted to acknowledge the repetitive and transitional nature of the Museum’s existence and explore the events that transpired in as much detail as possible.
Despite the need to resort to certain top-down elements - relying on wider context to interpret the missing connections - while discussing the Soviet period due to the lack of accurate data, the majority of the thesis is a highly detailed microhistory of a particular facility at certain specified periods of its existence. This approach was chosen as opposed to the established Russian academic practice of researching larger narratives and trends based on multiple case studies. This thesis was written with recognition the value of Russian academic tradition and was fed from multiple Russian-language sources, however, the analysis of the material and the choices made while interpreting the data are significantly dissimilar.
It was done to, firstly, experiment with interpreting Russian material with methods that are common for Anglophone researchers and, secondly, to share the facts and findings with a community which otherwise would not have had access to them because of the language barrier. The goal of exploring this particular case study was enhancing the understanding of Russian museum practices, specifically attitudes towards museum architecture and museum work as a profession and an academic field, thus contributing to the conversation about museum architecture worldwide. However, the limitations of projecting the findings onto other contexts, and even other institutions in similar contexts, are acknowledged here; this was partly done even in the course of research by contrasting the early experiences of the SHM to its neighbour and contemporary, the Moscow Polytechnic Museum.
To conclude, I have formulated a view that the physical form of a museum is a product of a decision-making process, and it is affected by those decisions aimed directly at forming it and those that at first glance have no immediate connection to it. Ignoring the possible effects each staff member’s contributions may have had on the museum buildings, an effect often observed when architecture is understood narrowly, can lead to unexpected outcomes. This thesis supports the view of museum architecture presented in the works of MacLeod,
218 Crook, and Whitehead, that is characterised by a holistic approach that acknowledges the role of multiple parties involved in the production of museum space, the importance of the contexts in which museums exist, and the variety of the purposes they serve.
Such an approach to museum architecture is rather new for the Russian museological tradition, which tends to generalise trends and investigate large narratives without focusing on particular institutions or people. The introduction of a micro historical approach allowed to minimize institutional bias and explore highly politicised material without viewing politics as the only driver of the events in question.
I hope that my research has demonstrated the advantages of the micro historical approach, which can bring new perspectives to the previously studied subject. By adding the facility management lens while studying the SHM building, I was able to outline factors that had a crucial effect on the spatial transformations, such as mission and strategy, organisational structure, and professional communication. These are factors which I hope can make a contribution to ongoing work at the Museum. I intended to emphasize the complexity of how museum spaces are produced and how many parties are involved in the process, as well as paying special attention to their communication patterns. With my work I would also like to inform Russian museum professionals about the importance of completing a holistic research of the facility’s history so that the previous experiences can be taken into account in the current renovation and reconstruction projects.
219 Bibliography
2015 IAMFA Annual Conference, (n.d.),
220 redakciej sekretarja Komiteta N.K. Zengera (Moscow: Tipografija Gracheva i K. u Prechistenskih vorot, dom Shilovoj. 1874), pp. 57, 69-75. Brown, George, The Principles of Museum Administration (York: Coultas & Volans, 1895). Bruggen, Coosje van, and Frank O. Gehry, Frank O. Gehry: Guggenheim Museum Bilbao (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 1997). Buildings and Society: Essays on the Social Development of the Built Environment, ed. by A. King (London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980). Burov, A., ‘Posle arhitekturnogo s"ezda’ [after Architectural Congress], Sovetskoe iskusstvo, 17 July 1937, 33(379). Burov, A.K. Andrej Konstantinovich Burov: Pis'ma. Dnevniki. Besedy s aspirantami. Suzhdenija sovremennikov [Andrei Konstantinovich Boers: Letters. Diaries. Interview with the graduate students. Сomments by his contemporaries] (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1980). Bykova, S.I., ‘Vozhd' kak vrag: Negativnye konnotacii obraza I. Stalina v predstavlenijah sovremennikov’ [Leader as the enemy: negative connotations the image of I. Stalin, according to his contemporaries], Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N.I. Lobachevskogo, 4(3) (2013), 128-134. Bylinkin N.P., Zhuravlev A.M., Shishkina I.V. et al., Sovremennaja sovetskaja arhitektura 1955-1980 gg [Modern Soviet Architecture, 1955-1980] (Moscow: Strojizdat, 1985). Cameron, Duncan, 'Viewpoint: the museum as a communication system and implications for museum education', Curator, 11(1) (1968), 33-40. Cassar, May, Delivering a successful museum building (Leeds: Royal Armouries Museum, 1999). Cassar, May, Environmental management: guidelines for museums and galleries (London; New York: Routledge, 1995). Caygill, Marjorie and Christopher Date, Building the British Museum (London: British Museum Press, 1999). ‘Cerkovnye muzei’ [Ecclesiastical museums], Rossijskaja muzejnaja jenciklopedija [Russian Museum Encyclopaedia],
221 Chugunova, Anastasija Vladimirovna, ‘Sociokul'turnyj obraz sovremennogo muzeja’ [Social and cultural image of the contemporary museum] (PhD thesis, Saint Petersburg State University of Culture and Arts, 2012). Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, in Basic Texts of the 1972 World Heritage Convention (Paris: UNESCO, 2005), pp. 7-22.
222
223 Ginzburg, Carlo, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth Century Miller, (Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, repr. 1992). Gjuncburg, Karl Markovich. Moskovskij Golicynskij muzej [Moscow Golitsyn Museum], 2 vols (Moscow: Univ. tip., [1867]-1868). Glava I Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie kul'turnym stroitel'stvom. 1917 g. – 1935 g. [Chapter 1. State management of cultural construction. 1917-1935], Official website of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation,
224 Hill, Michael R. Archival Strategies and Techniques (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, 1993). Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean, Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge (London: Routledge, 1992). Hripun, Sergej, ‘Istoricheskij muzej priotkrylsja’ [Historical Museum half opened], Kommersant daily, 150 (9 sentjabrja 1997), p. 5. Hristoforov, V. and Vinogradov, V. Lubjanka v dni bitvy za Moskvu: Po rassekrechennym dokumentam FSB RF [Lubyanka during the Battel of Moscow: secret documents from Federal Security Service] (Moscow: Zvonnica, 2002). Hungarian National Museum, The founding of the Museum, History of the Museum, 225 kompleks/museum_history/istoricheskiy-muzey/history/> [Accessed 1 June 2017]. Istorija sozdanija Restavracionno-hranitel'skogo centra «Staraja Derevnja» [History of the creation of the restoration and storage centre "Staraya Derevnya"], the State Hermitage Museum (official museum website), 226 Karpov, V. V., Sovetskij muzej, 5 (1931), pp. 89-91. Katernoga, M.T., Arhitektura muzejnyh i vystavochnyh zdanij [Architecture of museum and exhibition buildings] (Kiev: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Arhitektury Ukrainskoj SSR, 1952). Kaulen, M. E., I. M. Kossova and A. A. Sundieva, eds., Muzejnoe delo Rossii [Museum work in Russia], 3rd edn (Moscow: VK, 2010). Kaulen, Marija Eliseevna, Muzeefikacija istoriko-kul'turnogo nasledija Rossii [Musealisation of historical-cultural heritage] (Moscow: Jeterna, 2012). Kavel'maher, Vol'fgang Vol'fgangovich, Cerkov' Preobrazhenija v Ostrove [Church of the Transfiguration in the Ostrov] (Moscow: Alev-V, 2009). King, A., ed., Buildings and Society: Essays on the Social Development of the Built Environment (London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980). Kirichenko, Evgenija Ivanovna. Arhitekturnye teorii XIX veka v Rossii [Architectural theories in Russia in the XIXth century] (Mosсow: Iskusstvo, 1986). Kirikov, B. and M. Shtiglitz, Arhitektura Leningradskogo Avangarda: Putevoditel [Leningrad Avant-Garde Architecture: A Guide] (Saint Petersburg: Kolo Publishing House, 2008), pp. 94-99. Kljuchevskij, Vasilij Osipovich, Lekcija LIX [Lecture 59], in Kurs russkoj istorii (Lekcii XXXIII-LXI) [Course of lectures on Russian history (Lectures 33- 61)] 227 Krupskaja, Nadezhda, 'Otnoshenie Lenina k muzejam' [Lenin's attitude to museums], Sovetskij muzej, 1 (1934), 5-6. Kubarev, Aleksej Mihajlovich. Moskovskij publichnyj muzej i Biblioteka [The Moscow public museum and Library] (Moscow: Univ. tip. Katkov i K°, 1866). Kurukin, I.V., Istorija Rossii IX-XX vv. [History of Russia of the IXth-XXth centuries] (Moscow: Prem'era, 1998). Laboratorija muzejnogo proektirovanija [Museum design Lab] (Facebook public group < https://www.facebook.com/groups/museumprojecting/> [Accessed 1 June 2017]. Levin, Miriam R., Sophie Forgan, Martina Hessler, Robert H. Kargon and Morris Low, Urban Modernity: Cultural Innovation in the Second Industrial Revolution (Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England: MIT, 2010) 228 Macdonald, Sharon, ed., A Companion to Museum Studies (London: Blackwell, 2006). MacLeod, Suzanne, Laura Hourston Hanks and Jonathan Hale, eds., Museum Making: Narratives, Architectures, Exhibitions (Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge, 2012). MacLeod, S. ‘Image and Life: museum architecture, social sustainability and design for creative lives’ in S. Greub (ed.) New Museums: Intentions, Expectations, Challenges (Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2017). MacLeod, Suzanne, Museum Architecture: A New Biography (London and New York: Routledge, 2013). MacLeod, S., Dodd, J. and Duncan, T., Developing IWM North, RCMG/IWM, 2014. Magnússon, Sigurður Gylfi and István M. Szijártó. What is Microhistory? Theory and Practice (London, New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis group, 2013). Majstrovskaja, Marija Terent'evna, ‘Arhitektura Muzejnaja’ [Museum Architecture], Rossijskaja muzejnaja jenciklopedija [Russian Museum Encyclopaedia], 1st vol: N-Ja / ed. by V. L. Janin (Moscow: Progress; Ripol klassik, 2001), pp. 48-50. Malevich, K., Essays on art, 1915-1933 (Copenhagen: Borgen, 1968), p. 70. Malickij, G.L., ‘K istorii Oruzhejnoj palaty Moskovskogo Kremlja’ [On the history of the Kremlin Armoury Chamber], in Gosudarstvennaja Oruzhejnaja palata Moskovskogo Kremlja. (Moscow, 1954), pp. 507-560. Martova, Elena, Prazdnik. Istoricheskij muzej vozvrashhaetsja k ljudjam [Celebration. Historical Museum returns to people], Delovoj mir, 30 (121) (8-11 August 1997), p. 9. Mihajlov, Konstantin, Moskva, kotoruju my poterjali [Moscow we lost] (Moscow: Jeksmo; Jauza, 2010). Morris, Peter J. T., Science for the nation: perspectives on the history of the Science Museum (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). ‘Moskomissiontorg, Moskommunhoz (MKH), Moskoncert’, Online version of “Moskva” encyclopedia published in 1980, 229 Moskovskij muzej prikladnyh znanij. Materialy, kasajushhiesja ustrojstva muzeja, rechi, proiznesennye pri ego otkrytii 30-go nojabrja 1872 goda, otchet vysochajshe uchrezhdennogo komiteta muzeja za pervyj god ego sushhestvovanija po 30 nojabrja 1873 goda [Moscow museum of applied knowledge. Materials related to the organisation of the Museum, speeches delivered during its inauguration on November 30 1872, ...], Izvestija imperatorskogo obshhestva ljubitelej estestvoznanija, antropologii i jetnografii, vol. 15 (Moscow: Tipografija Gracheva i K. u Prechistenskih vorot, dom Shilovoj, 1874) Muzej prikladnyh znanij v Moskve. Otchety o dejatel'nosti muzeja i ego otdelov za 1905 god [Museum of applied science in Moscow. Reports on the activities of the Museum and its divisions for the year 1905] (Moscow: Tipo-litografija “Russkogo T-va pechatnogo i izdatel'skogo dela”, 1906). Nacher, Yves, ‘From medium to message: museum architecture today’, Museum International, October 1997, 49(4), 4-5. Nadezhdin, N. A., Moskovskaja oruzhejnaja palata [Moscow Armory] (Saint Petersburg, Moscow: t-vo M.O. Vol'f, cenz., 1902). Nazarevskij, Vladimir Vladimirovich, Iz istorii Moskvy, 1147-1913: illjustrir. ocherki V. V. Nazarevskogo [On the history of Moscow, 1147-1913: Illustrated Essays by Nazarevskij] (Moscow: Skoropech. A. A. Levenson, 1914). Nedelya stroitelya [Builder’s week], № 31, 1881. 'Nel'zja dopustit' konfrontacii mezhdu muzejami i cerkov'ju' [We cannot allow confrontation between museums and the Church], Sovetskij muzej, 1(123) (1992), 6-7. Nikolaeva, N. S., ‘Formirovanie gosudarstvennoj sistemy ohrany pamjatnikov vo vtoroj chetverti XIX veka (sravnitel'nyj analiz: Francija i Rossija)’ [Formation of the state system for the protection of monuments in the second quarter of the XIXth century (comparative analysis: France and Russia)], Izvestija Rossijskogo Gosudarstvennogo Pedagogicheskogo Universiteta im. A.I. Gercena, 80 (2008), 261-270. Nikulina, Elena, ‘Mel'nikov i Leonidov: konkursnye proekty Narkomtjazhproma v Moskve. Formotvorcheskie idei i universal'naja geometrija v uslovijah real'nogo goroda’ [Melnikov and Leonidov: competitive projects of 230 Narkomtjazhprom in Moscow. Ideas and universal geometry in the city], Arhitekturnyj Vestnik, 1(112) (2010), pp. 49-55. O dopolnenii i chastichnom izmenenii postanovlenija Soveta Ministrov RSFSR ot 30 avgusta 1960 g. N 1327 "O dal'nejshem uluchshenii dela ohrany pamjatnikov kul'tury v RSFSR" [On the changes to the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR from 30.08.1960, no. 1327 "On further improvement of protection of monuments of culture in the RSFSR], Jelektronnyj fond pravovoj i normativno-tehnicheskoj dokumentacii 231 front] 232 Pevsner, Nikolaus, A History of Building Types (London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 1979). Po, Alisa, ‘Gorod. Pushkinskij muzej: Proekt rekonstrukcii’ [The City. The Pushkin Museum: Renovation Project], The Village (22 March 2012) 233 of protection of monuments of culture in the RSFSR], Jelektronnyj fond pravovoj i normativno-tehnicheskoj dokumentacii 234 Rondeau, Edmond P., Robert Kevin Brown and Paul D. Lapides, Facility Management (New York: Wiley, 2006). Runkevich, S. G., Uchrezhdenie i pervonachal'noe ustrojstvo Svjatejshego Pravitel'stvujushhego Sinoda (1721—1725 gg.) [Establishment and initial device Holy Of Synod (1721-1725)], (Saint Petersburg, 1900). Rjadom s Kremlem pogibaet istorija [History is dying near the Kremlin), Moskovskaja pravda newsparer, 11 February, 1997, № 5 (123). Ryhlova, Tat'jana and Jurij Arpishkin, Otkrytie muzeja: randevu s istoriej [The opening of the Museum: Rendez-vous with history], Kul'tura, 36 (7096), (18 September 1997), p. 1. Saracheva, Tat'jana Grigor'evna, Muzejnaja letopis' Pokrovskogo sobora [The museum history of St Basil's Cathedral museum] (Moscow: Federal'noe gos. bjudzhetnoe uchrezhdenie kul'tury "Gos. ist. muzej", 2013). Shahnovich, M. M. and T. V. Chumakova, Muzej istorii religii Akademii nauk SSSR i rossijskoe religiovedenie (1932-1961) [Museum of the history of religion of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Russian religion studies (1932- 1961)] (Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 2014). Shcherbakova, A., ‘Iz istorii muzejnogo proektirovanija v Rossii’ [On the history of museum design in Russia], in Museum Design, ed. by A. Sherbakova (Moscow, 2009), pp. 234-254. Shervud, Vladimir Osipovich. Zhivopis', skul'ptura, arhitektura i ornamentika: Opyt issled. zakonov iskusstva [Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, and Ornamental Patterns: Research results] (Moscow: Univ. tip., 1895). Shkurko, Aleksandr Ivanovich, ‘Interview’ (interviewed by Marina Ovsova), Moskovskij komsomolec, 248 (17.510) (31 December 1996), p. 3. Shkurko, Aleksandr Ivanovich, ‘Interview’ (interviewed by Natal'ja Zimjanina), Vechernij klub, 34 (1257) (11-17 September 1997), p. 15. Shkurko, Aleksandr Ivanovich, ‘Novye lica. Tjazheloe nasledstvo’ (interviewed by Evgraf Konchin), Kul'tura: Obshhenacional'naja ezhenedel'naja gazeta, 25 (6853) (31 October 1992), p. 2. Shkvarikov, V., Sovetskaja arhitektura za XXX let RSFSR [Soviet Architecture during the 30 years of RSFSR] (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii arhitektury SSSR, 1950). 235 Shlyakhtina, L. M., Osnovy muzejnogo dela. Teorija i praktika [Museum Basics. Theory and practice] (Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 2009). Shmit, Fedor Ivanovich, Muzejnoe delo. Voprosy jekspozicii [Museum work. Exhibition Matters] (Leningrad: Academia, 1929). Shulepova, Je. A., ed., Muzeevedcheskaja mysl' v Rossii XVIII – XX vekov [Museological thought in Russia in the XVIIIth to XXth centuries], ed. by (Moscow: Jeterna, 2010). Shulepova, Je., ed., Osnovy muzeevedeniya [Basics of Museum Studies], 4th edn (Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2015). Shumnaya, T., ed., Terminologicheskie problemy muzeevedenija [Terminology Issues of Museum Studies], (Moscow: Central Museum of the Revolution, 1986), p. 56. Sizova, Irina Alekseevna, Muzejnoe delo v otechestvennyh dissertacionnyh issledovanijah (1990-2010 gg.) [Russian PhDs on Museum Studies: the 1990s- 2010s], Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istorija, 3(15) (2011), pp. 136-139. Sljun'kova, Inessa Nikolaevna, Proekty oformlenija koronacionnyh torzhestv v Rossii XIX veka [Design projects of Coronation ceremonies in XIXth century Russia] (Moscow: BuksMArt, 2013). Smithsonian Institution. The Office of Facilities Management and Reliability (OFMR), (n.d.) 236 Stat'ja 4. Gosudarstvennoe regulirovanie v sfere muzeev i Muzejnogo fonda Rossijskoj Federacii [Article 4. State regulation in the field of museums and the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation], in Federal'nyj zakon ot 26.05.1996 N 54-FZ (red. ot 03.07.2016) "O Muzejnom fonde Rossijskoj Federacii i muzejah v Rossijskoj Federacii" [Federal law N 26.05.1996 54-FZ (ed. on 03.07.2016), "the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation and museums in Russian Federation"] 237 V muzee V.I.Lenina [Inside the Museum of Lenin], online video recording, Youtube, 23 November 2013, 238 Yureneva, Tamara Jur'evna, Muzeevedenie [Museum Studies] (Moscow: Akademicheskij Proekt, 2003). Zabelin, I. E., Dnevniki. Zapisnye knizhki [Diaries. Notebooks] (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo imeni Sabashnikovyh, 2001). Zaharov, M. P., Putevoditel' po Moskve i ukazatel' ee dostoprimechatel'nostej: s planom Moskvy [Guide and index its sightseeings: with the plan of Moscow], 3rd edn (Moscow: v Univ. tip. Katkov i K°, 1868). Zakon «O svobode sovesti i religioznyh organizacijah» [The Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations] Archives 29 janvarja 1914 goda. Obrashhenie Shherbatova k gospodinu Ispravljajushhemu dolzhnost' moskovskogo gorodskogo golovy [January 29, 1914. Scherbatov’s address to the acting Moscow Mayor], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, fond 270, Inventory 2, item 9. Datieva, N.S., Istoricheskaja zapiska [Historical note], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive (November 1989). 239 Doklad predstavitelej Muzeja o muzejnoj konferencii, sostojavshejsja 9–20 fevralja 1919 g. v g. Petrograde [Report of the representatives of the Museum at a Museum Conference held on 9-20 February 1919, Petrograd], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 155. Dokumenty o podgotovke GIM k kap remontu, 1979-1983 [Documents on the preparation of the SHM for major repairs, 1979-1983], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Opis' «Uchenyj sekretariat», vol 1, file 125, folios 9-13. Dokumenty o podgotovke GIM k kapital'nomu remontu [Documents on the preparation of the SHM's renovation, 1979-1983], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, Academic secretariat, file 125, folios 51 and 53. Dokumenty o podgotovke jekspozicii po istorii SSSR (tematiko-jekspozicionnye plany, struktura vystavok i dr.) [Documents on the development of the USSR exhibition], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 778, folio 25. Dokumenty o remontno-stroitel'nyh i restavracionnyh rabotah v zdanii Muzeja (smeta, tablicy, spiski) [Documents on the renovation and restoration of the SHM building (budget, tables, lists)], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 2, file 233. Dokumenty ob organizacii i dejatel'nosti Muzeja A.S. Pushkina (prikazy, protokoly, dogovor, akty), 5 oktjabrja 1936 – 12 nojabrja 1940 [Documents on the Organisation and activities of A.S. Pushkin Museum (orders, protocols, acts), October 5, 1936-November 12, 1940], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 517, folio 2. Dokumenty zasedanij Attestacionnoj komissii ob utverzhdenii v zvanii "mladshij nauchnyj sotrudnik" Muzeja (protokoly, spravki, harakteristiki i dr.) [Meeting documents certifying Commission approving the rank of Museum’s "assistant researcher" (minutes, certificates, specifications, etc.)], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental Archive, Academic Secretariat, file 263. Gardanov, V. K. Muzejnoe stroitel'stvo i ohrana pamjatnikov kul'tury v pervye gody Sovetskoj vlasti [Museum construction and protection of monuments of culture in the early years of Soviet power (1917-1920)] (1917-1920) in Istorija muzejnogo dela v SSSR. Trudy NII muzeevedenija, vol 1, 1957, pp. 7-57. 240 Instrukcija po stroitel'stvu zdanija Muzeja, razrabotannaja v 1874 g. [Instructions for the construction of the Museum building, designed in 1874], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 3. Klushkina, Irina, Istorija jekspozicii GIM [History of the exposition of the SHM], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive. Klushkina, Irina, Spisok vremennyh vystavok GIM s 1921 do 2002 g. [A list of temporary exhibitions hosted at the SHM from 1921 to 2002], Unpublished copy stored in a private archive. Kniga otzyvov posetitelej Muzeja, 1942-1949 gg. [Museum Visitors' Feedback Book, 1942-1949], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental Archive, Inventory 2, file 413. Malickij, G.A., Rossijskij istoricheskij muzej v nastojashhem i proshlom [Maliczkij, G.A., The present and the past of the Russian historical Museum], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, fond 416, item 8а, folios 1-29. Moscow, Russian State Historical Archive (RSHA): fol. 565, inventory 4, file 15031; fol. 733, inventory 145, file 282; fol. 1152, inventory 10, file 210. Moscow, State Historical Museum (SHM), Department of Written Sources, fol. 17-440 Otchet 1928-1932 gg. [Report 1928-1932], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 427, folio 1. Otchet muzeja o rabote za 1890 god [Report on the work of the Museum for the year 1890], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 47, folio 58. Otchet muzeja o rabote za 1895 god i prilozhenie k nemu (rukopis') [Report on the work of the Museum for the year 1895 and its annex (manuscript)], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 70, folio 41. Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1942 g. [1942 annual report] SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 717, folios 2, 7. Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1943 g. [1943 annual report], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 748, folio 1. Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1947 g. [1947 annual report], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 858, folio 14. Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1948 g. [1948 annual report], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 885, folio 26. 241 Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1949 g. [1949 annual report], SHM departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 910, 1949 Annual report, folios 1-2. Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1951 g. [1951 annual report], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 973, 1951 Annual report, folio 1. Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1954 g. [1954 annual report], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 1068, folio 32. Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1956 g. [1956 annual report], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, File 1119, folios 32-33. Otchet Muzeja o rabote za 1960 g. [1960 annual report], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 1231, folio 43. Otchet za 2e polugodie 1941 goda [Report on the second half of 1941], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 684. Pis'mo direktora muzeja G.K. Levykina v Moskovskij sovet narodnyh deputatov o hode kapital'nogo remonta v muzee 1 avgusta 1990 [Museum Director G.K. Levykin’s letter to Moscow Soviet of people's Deputies concerning the major overhaul of the Museum, August 1, 1990], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Academic Secretariat, vol. 2, file 224. Pis'mo Tovarishha Predsedatelja Rossijskogo Istoricheskogo muzeja N.S. Shherbatova gorodskomu golove o peredache zdanija Dumy v sobstvennost' Muzeja, 28 janvarja 1914 [Letter from N. Sherbatov to the Moscow city duma regarding the donation of the Duma's building to the SHM, 28 January 1914], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 129. Plany rejekspozicii arheologicheskih zalov Muzeja №№ 5–7, 1943 g. [Plans regarding redesign on exhibition halls 5-7 (Archaeology), 1943], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 2, file 448, folio 1. Protokoly proizvodstvennyh soveshhanij sotrudnikov hoz otdela 1934-1940 [Minutes of meetings of the housekeeping department], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 468. Protokoly soveshhanij pri direkcii za 1949 g. [Minutes of meetings with the Directorate for 1949 g.], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 906, Director minutes of meetings in 1949, folios 2-4. Protokoly zasedanij soveta muzeja za 1917 goda. Podlinniki i dokumenty k nim [Minutes of the meetings of the Board of the Museum of the year 1917. Scripts 242 and instruments to them], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 137, folio 23. Protokoly zasedanij Uchenoj kollegii muzeja za 1919 god [Minutes of the meetings of a scientific Museum for the College during 1919], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 154, folio 126. Razgon, Avram Moiseevich, Plan-prospekt monografii po istorii GIM [Outline plan for a monograph on the history of SHM], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, Academic secretariat Vol. 2, file 449. Soprovoditel'naja zapiska k proektu Otechestvo [Accompanying note to the draft Homeland], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive Inventory 1, file 17, folios 3-6, 39-42. Statisticheskie tablicy jekskursij Muzeja (1883 – 1928) [Statistical tables of guided tours of the Museum between 1883 and 1928], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 2, file 34, folio 1. Tablicy poseshhaemosti jekskursij za 1927-1929 gg. [Attendance tables excursions 1927-1929], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 364, folio 1. Ustav Muzeya, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 2, folios 5. Zhurnal zasedanij Soveshhatel'nogo prisutstvija po sooruzheniju zdanija Muzeja za 1874–1875 gg. i dokumenty k nemu [Minute book of consultative assembly for the construction of the Museum building for 1874 and 1875 and accompanied documentation], SHM, Dept.Written Sources, Departmental archive, Inventory 1, file 16, folio 5. List of images from the SHM collection: Figure 3. Fedor Alexeev, The Red Square and St Basil’s cathedral, 1800s. Федор Яковлевич Алексеев (1753/1754—1824), мастерская Вид Красной площади с собором Василия Блаженного 1800-е гг. Figure 4. E. Finden, I. Lavrov. Moscow. The northern part of the Red Square (to the Voskresensky gates). From the R. Lyall’s book "The Character of Russian and detailed history of Moscow". London, 1823. 243 Финден Эд. (автор гравюры), Лавров И. А. (автор рисунка), Москва. Вид северной части Красной площади (в сторону Воскресенских ворот). Из книги R.Lyall "The Character of Russian and detailed history of Moscow". London, 1823. Figure 5. Vladimir Sherwood, Anatoly Semenov, the main façade of the SHM, facing the Red Square, 1875. Шервуд В.О. 1832-1897, Семенов А.А. 1842- 1917 Конкурсный проект здания Исторического музея под девизом «Отечество». Вид со стороны Красной площади. Figure 6. Sherwood’ design of the Paradnue Seni. Шервуд В.О. Проект оформления Главных сеней Исторического музея. Поперечный разрез. Figure 7. Sherwood’s design of the Byzantine hall, 1875-1881. Шервуд В.О. 1832-1897. Проект оформления зала Христианского отдела Исторического музея. 1875-1878 гг. Figure 8. Tile U.F. The Byzantine hall, the 1880s. Тиле Ю. Ф. Зал христианского искусства до X века (А) - с куполом. 1880-е гг. Figure 9. Tile U.F. Kiev Hall, 1880s. Тиле Ю. Ф. Киевский зал. Figure 10. 1875-77s, Construction phase. Дьяговченко И. ГИМ. Фотография. Строительная площадка ГИМ. Фундаменты. 1876 Interviews Belozerkovskaya, Irina, interview by A. Mikhailova, digital audio file and transcription, Moscow, 25 May 2015, State Historical Museum (SHM). Klushkina, Irina, interview by A. Mikhailova, digital audio file and transcription, Moscow, 25 May 2015, State Historical Museum (SHM). Lykianov, Evgeny, interview by A. Mikhailova, digital audio file and transcription, Moscow, 17 May 2015, State Historical Museum (SHM). 244 Shkurko, Alexander, interview by A. Mikhailova, digital audio file and transcription, Moscow, 25 May 2015, State Historical Museum (SHM). 245