Strengthening European public space. Conversation with Raivis Sīmansons, Assistant Curator at the House of European History

The House of European History was finally opened in Brussels on 6 May 2017. A project developed for 10 years at a cost of 56 million euros and implemented by a team of experts from all over Europe. The seven-storey museum provides an opportunity to see the European history from antiquity to the present day with around 1000 exhibits on show from more than 250 museums in Europe and further afield.

So what exactly is the House of European History? How was its concept developed? How did it evolve? What story does it tell about Europe? These questions I discussed in the conversation with the Assistant Curator at the House of European History, Raivis Sīmansons.

The question of what is the House of European History will also be in the focus of expert discussion in the European Union House in Riga on 19 May.

Ineta Zelča Sīmansone: During the six years of working on this project, you most probably often faced with the questions of what will be the House of European History? What story will it tell?

Raivis Sīmansons: The House of European History is supposed to offer a transnational perspective on the history, memory and identity of Europe. The project initiator – the European Parliament – wanted to make an emphasis on the integration history of post-war Europe in the permanent exhibition. We as museum experts, in cooperation with the Academic Council, expanded the content scope by including a survey into the history of Europe as a concept and its different formations. Technically, the exhibition begins with a narrative of the national revolutions of the 19th century; however, before the beginning of the story of the permanent exhibition, the introduction part provides an insight into earlier historical events: from the emergence of the myth of Europe to grand concepts defining Europe such as democracy, philosophy, and Christianity. In addition, the introduction highlights the negative sides of the European civilisation such as imperialism, slavery, state terrorism and other downsides. Summing up the above-mentioned, the House of European History offers a transnational perspective on our common home and, as a typical contemporary history museum, provides a topical comment on the current historical events, and interprets past events and their defining concepts through the lens of our times.

IZS: You have marked the chronologically initial period. But what is the period closing the story of the House of European History, or is it left open?

RS: The story is left open since a contemporary history museum is always concerned with collecting items of the contemporary history and putting them in a broader context. The latest exhibition items are related to the Brexit events – materials that we gathered in London from both sides of the campaign. T-shirt labels calling for staying in or leaving the European Union, various stickers, etc. It demonstrates the critical attitude towards history of this museum and any other honest museum. This house, although it bears the proud name of the House of European History and has been established by the European Parliament, does not stop at the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the European Union in 2012, but critically evaluates its successes and failures. This is a public forum meant to debate about everything that we are concerned with in Europe against the background of the comprehensive exhibition of the transnational historical memory. If this museum has a global goal, then it is to strengthen the European public space, which is currently provided with both a physical place – a forum, and textual discourse, which will be established over time by the museum to gather people and make them think about the past and future of Europe.

IZS: You have deposited items from more than 200 museums...

RS: We have deposited about a thousand of items from around 250 museums, not to mention the pictures and audio-visual materials, the number of which is measured in thousands of units.

IZS: Please, tell a little more about the museum’s concept, as this museum was not based on an existing collection but rather on the idea of the need of a common story about Europe, for which you have been buying and lending items for six years.

RS: The classical formula of a contemporary history museum is public announcement that follows a politician taking office. At that moment the museum has neither a collection nor employees nor permanent location. This is it’s legitimising factor. After announced, it is time to work on selection of employees and development of the concept that is formed in the process of dialogical memory. To achieve this transnational perspective, it is necessary to stick to this methodology that works with the contemporary historiography on the basis of the dialogical memory. And good ten years later you will have a museum.

IZS: You have mentioned the personnel of the museum. This museum was established by creating and implementing the concept in a very multinational team.

RS: In contrast to other European programs, the basic principle of which is the quota principle (catch quotas, agriculture quotas, etc.), the European history cannot subject to the quota principle. The jobs in the team of the House of European History got those who applied for those positions and withstood the competition. It is just a coincidence that this team, which started the work six years ago, also includes a representative of the Baltic States, that is me. Another thing is the Academic Committee, for the recruitment of which the project proponents looked after the widest possible geographical coverage and purposefully chose one representative from the Baltic States, as well as representatives from the United Kingdom, Northern European, Southern Europe, Central European and Western European countries. We have about 20 nationalities represented in the team of the House of European History that has been working on the completion of the project; however, representatives of almost all European Union countries have been working on this project. Here I mean not only the team involved, but also the lenders from all the European Union states and many other non-European Union countries, as well as the translation to all 24 official EU languages. 

IZS: Please, tell a little bit more about the background of the concept of this museum. Maybe, there are some countries where a similar concept has been implemented?

RS: When thinking about the historiography school, which underlies the concept of this museum, we will inevitably come to the German idealism philosophy that underpins it. Globally, this type of museum that starts with an idea rather than an object can occur only on the condition that the truth is discovered rationally, that is with the help of mind. This can be contrasted with the other largest philosophy school, which is known from antiquity – empiricism, which explores the truth in an empirical way. Applied to museum scene, this division is clearly visible. For instance, Anglo-Saxons very unlikely would create a museum based on the philosophy of idealism - that is starting with an idea, while this approach is absolutely natural for the German idealism school, thus we can observe museums of this type emerging in continental Europe, particularly, in the German-speaking area. Specifically, we speak about the House of German History that was founded by Helmut Kohl back in 1982, at the time when the German nation was still divided. Ten years later, it was completed in united Germany and provided a methodology for creation of museums of this type. The initiator of this museum Hans-Gert Pöttering, like his mentor Helmut Kohl, is a representative of the Christian Democrats, and the creation of this museum repeats the known formula: the President of the European Parliament took up his post in 2007 announcing creation of this museum in his inaugural speech. So, the genealogy of creation of a contemporary history museum is clearly traceable from the post-war German historical situation and, specifically, from the historiography school that it developed.

IZS: With the only difference that this is a museum representing one country, while the museum in Brussels represents the history of the whole of Europe.

RS: Yes, but its formula is actually identical, only brought to the European level. If we speak about its baseline, then it is clearly the rupture of the European civilisation during the Shoah or the Holocaust, which serves as the negative starting point of European memory debate. Unlike a number of other history museums of the 20th century, this museum does not have a separate gallery devoted to the Holocaust within the section of the Second World War, where the Holocaust is one of the topics. However, there is a separate gallery devoted to the Holocaust in the 1960’s section with a symbolism, which speaks about the fact that when the countries started to recover economically and the standard of living began to rise after the Second World War, it was the time of the next generation that made this historical trauma topical and started to bring this issue into the daylight. These were the popular history products that launched the memory debate. Similarly, in the transnational view on Europe, the Holocaust is the central theme that triggers historical self-reflection in Europe, which nowadays, thanks to the Eastern and Central European politicians’ efforts, is supplemented with the recognition of Stalinist crimes. Scenographically, both totalitarian regimes are now contrasted with each other, of course, recognizing the crucial differences. This helps to reveal – perhaps, for the first time in such a scenographic way – the criminal nature of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century to the Western Europeans, which was not possible until the end of the Cold War and our entry into the discourse of the historical memory of Europe. 

IZS: Since you have mentioned scenography, maybe you could briefly characterise the meaning of creation of such a museum from the point of view of production?

RS: To create such a museum means to sequentially go through all development phases of a capital project: from the architectural works to the placement of labels in a completed exhibition. Such a museum requires considerable resources, and any museum of such level demands considering the industry standards that imply the cost of approximately four thousand euros per square meter after the architectural works have already been completed. To implement this, as with a public institution, it is necessary to carry out a large public tender and to choose a production company, which will hire subcontractors and successively implement the project: from the concept design to making. This work requires a consortium of various companies responsible for design, showcase production, multimedia, graphic design and so on. 

IZS: What does it mean that all the information provided in the museum is available in 24 languages?

RS: The fact that the information is available in 24 official languages of the European Union means that in this museum there is nothing written on the wall, except for quotes in their original languages. All the information is available in the form of a digital multimedia guide that, speaking in plain language, will take the visitor by the hand and lead him through the exhibition.

IZS: To return to the exhibition objects, how did you find them in different European countries when creating the museum?

RS: The original idea was to do this work in a centralized way and turn to the managing authorities and associations of the museums, proposing them to cooperate in the creation of a large museum in Brussels. It did not work because it was a new project with no reputation, and no one really knew how to coordinate it. However, all the material-gathering work fell on the shoulders of curators, who were supposed to be knowledgeable and visible enough in their national countries or regions to serve as a kind of national correspondents. For example, my area was the Baltic States and Russia; however, I was also engaged in lending and acquiring objects and graphic materials from some other countries.

IZS: Could you briefly highlight the presence of Latvian objects in the exhibitions of the House of European History from the chronological and thematic point of view?

RS: Our part in the museum’s narrative starts with the first edition of the epic poem Lāčplēsis written by Andrejs Pumpurs in 1888, which is on loan from the Literature and Music Museum. I could mention again the fact that working centrally was very hard, since it was not possible to find even such a visible item in the National Museum Holdings digital catalogue at the beginning of this work five years ago. It became possible after the engagement of curators who knew that one or another object, photograph or poster could be stored in the collection of a particular museum, archive or library, and directly addressed the keepers of these collections.

There is a whole range of exhibition objects related to Latvia. We have the only photography of the proclamation of the Latvian State taken by Vilis Rīdzinieks on 18 November 1918, which has been offered by Museum of the History of Riga and Navigation. This museum has also deposited a 1950’s vase made in the socialist realism-style and decorated with Stalin and Lenin profiles and Kremlin landscape. In addition, we have the first edition of the Constitution of Latvia deposited from the National History Museum of Latvia. The inter-war period is illustrated in our museum with national patriotic posters from the times of Ulmanis’ government. The 1941 deportation story is illustrated with the letter on the birch bark from the Tukums Museum. The exhibition also contains a teddy bear belonging to Latvian refugees, which travelled to the US and has been deposited by the Latvians Abroad Museum and Research Centre. Besides, we have different household appliances on loan from the National History Museum of Latvia. The Latvenergo Museum has deposited an electricity counter, for example. We have a radio receiver from the National Awakening times, which at that time was used as a means of communication. As an illustration of the recent historical event of the accession of Latvia to the European Union, the museum shows a 2004 anniversary coin. The list can go on. Actually, we have covered the entire exhibition narrative, from the national movements in the 19th century to the renewed Europe and the accession of Latvia to it. However, it should always be borne in mind that the reason why these objects, posters and documents are a part of the exhibition of the House of European History has nothing to do with the fact that they came directly from Latvia. The selection criterion is the ability of an item to symbolise a transnational event, such as the map from the report of Einsatzgruppe A commander, Franz Walter Stahlecker, from the Latvian State Historical Archives, which shows the progress of the extermination operations of the Jews in all three Baltic States.

IZS: Speaking about the objects from Latvia, there is another object from Latvia displayed in the museum’s thematic exhibition – Nikolaus von Himsel's travel manuscript...

RS: Yes, Himsel’s manuscript is a part of the section of the thematic exhibition which is devoted to journeys, traveling and borders generally. It is displayed in a wonderful company with the work of Thomas Nuget, who a couple of years before Himsel’s journey issued the most popular Grand Tour description of his time. Himsel lived in London for ten months, and we can almost safely assume that the bestseller of those times did not pass him by. Most probably, Himsel was dreaming of a similar issue of his own manuscript – maybe that is why he took his records very carefully and put them in solid leather covers. Himsel himself visited Brussels in 1754, as evidenced by the records in the manuscript describing the impression of this city. This manuscript deposited to the House of European History symbolises the return of Himsel as the founder of the Latvian and Baltic museum tradition to the European cultural space.

IZS: Please, tell a little more about the thematic exhibition. Whether and how is the thematic exhibition related to the overall narrative of the museum? How does it complement the permanent exhibition at the moment of opening?

RS: The thematic exhibition is dedicated to the European culture. Unlike the permanent exhibition, which is more devoted to the political history of Europe, the thematic exhibition is focused on what the French call the longue durée – review of a long historical period. It includes a review of our trade relations with other continents, the wars and conflicts, our evolution in resolving such conflicts through negotiation, commemorating the first great achievements in public diplomacy, such as Westphalia Peace agreement and Vienna congresses, etc. In addition, the thematic exhibition more thoroughly focuses on the role of Christianity and the European culture of daily life, displaying such objects as a menu in which the impact of different foreign cultures is seen.

As I said, to a certain extent, the permanent exhibition is devoted to the political history, which follows the “hard Europeanisation line”, while the thematic exhibition represents the “mild Europeanisation line” and more belongs to the cultural and public diplomacy, since it tells about culture, food, and daily life.

IZS: Do you have any ideas of the next thematic exhibition?

RS: Yes, at the moment, we are working on the next thematic exhibition, which will replace the present one in 12 months and will be devoted to the European youth, covering the great events of entry of the European young people into the European political arena and everyday life in the 1960’s – the era of decline of the communist power, and the current era of economic crisis and unemployment.

IZS: Some periodicals covering the opening of the House of European History ask the question: “If we already have the European Parliament Visitor Centre Parlamentarium, then why do we need another EU Parliament Museum?” How do you highlight the differences between the visitor centre and the museum? Both of them are communication tools of the European Parliament.

RS: Communication tool is the key word for these two public spaces, which mark the greater focus of the EU institutions on communication after the constitutional crisis in 2004 that made them to transfer from the so-called soft cultural policy to a more rigorous memory policy in the form of such cultural institutions. Technically, the Parlamentarium is a typical visitor centre, whose prototype can be found in Washington that explains the democratic history and form of government of the USA. While the Parlamentarium explains the function of the European Parliament as a legislative body, the House of European History is a contemporary history museum, which as a forum has the an overall aim to strengthen the European public space.

IZS: Most probably, the difference also lies in the fact that it is a museum with objects and stories, while the Parlamentarium is a tool for explanation of political and legislative processes of the European parliament. Both of those are communication tools, but one of them explains the history and social memory, while the other technically explains governance principles.

RS: Exactly. The Parlamentarium explains the democratic participation mechanisms and participatory principles, while the museum gives a broader insight into the creation of the concept of Europe and its recent integration history.

IZS: What meanings and signals does this museum located in the Leopold Park express among the other local Brussels museums?

RS: This museum is a turning point in terms of accessibility of Brussels museums. It is the first time when Brussels has a seven-storey cultural venue with a full-fledged cultural service available to all visitors for free, with a fresh infrastructure, safe environment for families with children and a museum service, including a cafe, in-depth learning opportunities, etc. 

IZS: Speaking about the creative industries, does it also mean some breakthrough in the environmental revitalisation?

RS: I would say more – we can already see the central role this place will play in the European Quarter regeneration plan. It clearly marks the position of the European institutions within the Quarter and at the same time serves as a magnet for the development of new economies around it – cafes, hotels, concept stores. Time will tell how the European Quarter in Brussels will change our perceptions, following these capital investments.

 

Ineta Zelča Sīmansone

Museologist, Project Manager and Consultant