EXCHANGE

—When I was starting my museum career, I believed I was joining a team, a set of like-minded people that shared the same values, met the same challenges, and nurtured a feeling of togetherness. Today this feeling is gone. But most of all I am concerned with the public opinion and public debate in the cultural sphere. There are no professional discussions left in the media, just large quantities of imitation structures and outlets for simulated professional exchange. The professional agenda seems to be placed in the centre of an open public debate, but in reality, especially on social media, it boils down to fake aggressive declarations that pretend to be defending our culture from an assault of enemies from the outside and from within. The only voices we hear in this apocalyptic version of the Soviet Union are those of the hurt feelings of the public.

—Are there platforms for an open, meaningful dialogue between curators and museum directors? There is hardly any place for an informal, honest exchange, and even the existing spaces are shrinking as we speak. It has a lot to do with the lack of trust in society in general. Even with the closest colleagues, it is hard to carry on a meaningful dialogue because everyone is encouraged to mind their own business and keep a low profile. Shut up and say nothing about cultural policies or any other issue. It is a defective modus vivendi because without a meaningful debate on why, where, and for whom we are working, a museum becomes just an arrangement of well-known pictures on the walls. The ostensible professionalisation of this exchange is frustrating because without reflecting on what we do we are slipping into small talk about glass cabinets and exhibition design. There is hardly any way to offer a commentary on decision-making of any level. Bureaucracy is a much easier subject. The troubles that we all share are lack of financing and red tape follies. But after so many years these arguments do not seem to be so exciting any more, and any other subjects that have to do with the wishes and acts of museum people raise heated and frustrating debates.

—Official platforms such as the Cultural Forums in Moscow and Saint Petersburg dismiss the domain of cultural entrepreneurship and regional projects as such. Their agenda is entirely chauvinist. I still fail to understand what to do to join the discussion. I can hardly write to the Ministry, "Please include us into the working group because we know what we are doing." Probably we have not yet found the most efficient channels, so we have to do better. During her mandate, Natalia Samoilenko successfully curated working groups in her field and included actors from all sectors. It did us much good to be able to share our experiences. But at the Ministry all those meetings end up in nothing.

—Along with insider get-togethers behind closed doors, there are the few remaining websites and media that still manage to carry on a meaningful debate. However, even aside from censorship, the lack of shared language is striking. Colta.ru is a good case to the point. The content is substantial, informative, and relevant. But the difference and discordance of social and political stances brings about broken dialogues that tend to end up in abuse and curses. There are no basic conventions, no texts that everyone agrees with, hence the lack of understanding. The scenarios may be different, depending on the lineup and feelings, but everything boils down to the same old script: a series of apparently radical opinions are articulated and fall out immediately because they do not stem from a shared narrative or set of principles. Art criticism draws on all kinds of arguments: one exhibition is bad because it is all purple, and the other one is good because everything is soft. In some cases, the problem lies in the catastrophic lack of conversation skills, and sometimes the problem is with the content. As soon as the debate verges on the political, everything breaks down. There is no solid ground beneath our feet. Instead of a fine discussion about the more sophisticated points of the new definition of museum proposed by ICOM, we find ourselves in the middle of a heated argument about the right seasoning to choose while eating babies for breakfast. We have nothing in common, nothing at all.

—ICOM Russia has a diverse programme of important, valuable, and exciting events. I believe their position is remarkable, and the progress in museum practices deserves attention at the international level.