Scientifically, without any nationalistic implications
Alexandra Kusá, art historian, director of the Slovak National Gallery
MúzeumCafé 47.
In a corner of Coronation Hill Square in Bratislava there stands the Esterházy Mansion, an originally Baroque building which was later reconstructed in Eclectic style in 1870. The two wings of the building are connected by a modern extension, which generated much controversy. The extension, designed with out-of-date technology and built with inferior materials, covers about 1800 square metres and was initially used for temporary exhibitions. By 2001 it had become entirely unusable, thus the director, Katarína Bajcurová, decided to close it, which decision was much criticised. Meanwhile the possibility of completely demolishing the new wing was raised. Finally – still in 2001 – the management of the Slovak National Gallery and the Ministry of Culture decided to have a plan made for its reconstruction. The first phase was completed in 2004-2005. During that period only the most narrow tasks were in focus. Rethinking the entire building complex didn’t happen, though that was certainly necessary, all the more so since the tender involved development of the Slovak National Gallery, including meeting 21st-century requirements and the formation of a multifunctional museum building. The subsequent open design competition was won by the BKPŠ Kusý–Paňák architectural office in 2005. Work began, and since 2010 the institute has had a new director, art historian Alexandra Kusá.
– What was the gallery like from 1989 until your appointment, and what is it like today?
The institute was constantly changing. In 2008, when I curated an exhibition to mark the 60th anniversary of its foundation, I studied its history in detail. In every period of its existence something different was seen as important. For example, my predecessor Katarína Bajcurová paid a lot of attention to changing the composition of the professional staff and reinvigorating the group of curators. I think she was remarkably successful. I know that the change was very tedious, since in the socialist era the institute was looked down on. After 1989, however, freedom was in the air, though the gallery had to remain somewhat conservative. Everyone had a different conception with different priorities, but I think I have continued the work of my predecessor. I know how difficult it is to make decisions about personnel, though I believe Katarína resolved the issue very well. She introduced basic standards, which were previously lacking. An exhibition catalogue has to be published on time, it should include details of the works and notes about the literature, and be properly edited. All this sounds trivial, but these are basic requirements and they were very important for her. As for myself – perhaps partly because the technology had developed a lot – I began to focus on how the gallery could be more open to the world, how it could be a good model for the 21st century. Furthermore, professional standards were applied, for example, in relation to storage or the behaviour of staff vis-à-vis the public. All in all, how we could be seen to embody openness. We are funded by the taxpayers and we serve the common interest, though that doesn’t mean that quality has to suffer. We aim to maintain standards that are in place thanks to projects already underway and can be developed positively.
– The Slovak National Gallery is facing a crucial period in that a new museum quarter is planned. What do you think about that? How is moving the gallery affecting the personnel policies of the institute?
Moving involved a difficult decision. We are partly remaining in the same place, since we are not leaving the Esterházy Mansion, and there will be no renovation here. This is the only part of the building complex to which that applies. Thus there have been several possibilities, for example that we all move to the mansion. Finally we decided to move to a temporary location. We call it a creative temporary situation. We are trying several models to see how certain matters can work ‘for real’. We have adopted some approaches from abroad, but not everything which works elsewhere can be applied to our situation. We have already discovered that. We have laid great stress on accompanying events. This means fewer exhibitions in order to be able to organise more projects. For example, we are cooperating with the philharmonic orchestra and other bodies. We are offering them space and we aim to have several joint projects. Thus we can broaden the range of visitors. We are increasing staff numbers, since after reorganisation the gallery will be a very big organisation, working completely differently from before.
– Within this ‘creative temporary situation’ you are testing new models of operation. I assume specialists will be involved, significantly. What remains of the gallery’s professional and scientific work in this current, limited situation?
Firstly, digitisation of the collection is continuing. This is an EU supported, costly project, which will be completed this year. All our curators will participate. In addition we are planning a review of the entire collection and the final phase will be to start on our biggest scholarly project, preparation of our new permanent exhibitions.
– How did you manage to ensure the financial resources for all this?
Currently we are relying on the state budget, since the Slovak National Gallery is located in Bratislava and so is not a target of European funds.
– The Gallery being revitalised has created a positive image of Slovakia’s cultural policies. Can this be seen as a ‘pars pro toto’ for the state, in that similar things are happening in other fields?
I couldn’t say that, though the minister has several times remarked that reinvigoration of the Slovak National Gallery is of prime importance. I think that a nation of five million deserves more than a National Gallery of 1,200 square metres. The Gallery is an institute which belongs to the state just as much as the National Theatre or the National Library. This is partly a matter concerning cultural heritage. To have a National Gallery is a European standard and we are part of Europe.
– What is the conception concerning the Gallery’s new permanent exhibition?
We are considering all ideas we have encountered and we will present these to our colleagues and say what meets our approval and why. The notion of a permanent collection has developed a lot over recent decades.
– Are there plans to display Hungarian works of art when regeneration of the National Gallery is complete?
The time has come to approach the issue on a strictly scientific basis, without any nationalist implications.