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.