There are gifts. There is what you do with them. And then there is simply luck. In the case of David Lordkipanidze, the director of the Georgian National Museum, all three factors complement each other wonderfully. The region of Caucasus is an irrefutable gift. The southern part of it is the continuation of the cradle of civilisation – the Fertile Crescent. This is where biomolecular archaeology, supervised by Lordkipanidze, recently discovered the most ancient wine-making traditions. Colchis, the western region of Caucasus adjacent to the Black Sea, is well known to us from Greek mythology, because of the story of Jason and his crew of Argonauts on a quest for the Golden Fleece. For good reason. Georgia is also the home of the oldest gold mines on Earth.
Speaking of luck, when David was still a young palaeontologist on an archaeological expedition in Dmanisi, he discovered the homo georgicus erectus – an ancestor of the modern human, who travelled from Africa to Europe through Eurasia. After the completion of his dissertation in Moscow, a series of post-doctorate grants followed in Germany and France. Habilitation and training in the US museum system. Since the 2004 establishment of the Georgian National Museum, which encompasses all Georgian museums on a national level, from history and art to ethnographic and memorial museums, David is at the head of this small empire of museums. This kind of centralised management model could seem fallible to typical westerners, but it is a peculiarity of the region, that must be considered. During the interview David stubbornly refuses the role attributed to him as the leading force of professionalisation in the sector, who dictates the standards and raises the bar of professionalism in regional museums as well. (Georgia has no system of museum accreditation.) Still, the résumé of the leading player is impressive. Not only are there ten different museums, a national gallery, four historic house museums and two research centres under the wing of the National Museum, but it also publishes National Geographic Georgia in a private-public partnership. So, by analogy, if someone who wanted to speak to Europe like Henry Kissinger but could not find a number to call, in Georgia everything is much simpler. Here you must speak with David Lordkipanidze.
As a turmoil-filled country more in-between the West and East than the Baltics, Georgia has still clearly declared its pro-European and pro-NATO stance. In the case of the National Museum, the gaining of western professional experience and proving of itself in this community of values and partnership can be illustrated by initiatives such as, for example, the twinning programme with museums of the city of Berlin and last year’s exhibition on wine culture in Bordeaux, France.
We first met David in the flesh at the conference for the European Museum of the Year Award held in San Sebastian, Spain, where he presented the new Byzantine era religious art museum in the Georgian mountain village of Svaneti. The enthusiasm of a high-calibre researcher, the scale of a vision, the popular way of presentation and the charming sincerity catches one by surprise and evokes the thought that despite difficulties Georgian museum sector is well represented in the international museum arena.
Another time David was among the panellists of the conference for the opening of the cultural programme of Estonia’s presidency at the EU in the Estonian National Museum in Tartu. Together with him – a team of young people that actively participate in workshops. So, David considers and emphasises in our conversation the importance of succession. And it is promising.
Raivis Sīmansons: Considering the founding year of both of our countries, we would like to open the interview with a question regarding the centenary of the country. What are your plans for the centenary celebration in the Georgian National Museum?
David Lordkipanidze: We are planning on taking several routes. Our task is to create exhibitions. Exhibitions and programmes centred around them, especially regarding contemporary history, are the most challenging and important parts. It is much easier to work with homo erectus – millions of years of ancient history. One of a modern museum’s biggest challenges is to tell the story of contemporary history correctly.
RS: How do you deal with this as a palaeontologist?
DL: You must understand that I have two hats. One of them is my academic work, the other is being head of a State institution. That is my job.
RS: You have many deputies in many branches.
DL: Our structure is slightly different. I don’t like calling it a union of museums. It is an institution that encompasses museums, art galleries and scientific centres. The idea to create this type of institution came into being in 2004 when we started implementing various types of reforms. Until then Georgia, as a typical post-Soviet country had experienced huge changes in the political and economic sector, not so much in culture and research institutions.
RS: You called this conglomerate of museums the Georgian National Museum in 2004. In Latvia we experienced a change in name during this time too, giving art and history museums the status of a National Museum.
DL: We, of course, had been preparing for this. It’s not like we started from scratch. Our first museum was founded in 1852. It was the Caucasus Museum. Then several other museums emerged.
We formed the Georgian National Museum at a time when significant changes were being made in the governance of the science system. The Academy of Sciences was closed. Before that the State Museum, the main pillar of the Georgian National Museum, was part of the Academy of Sciences. As well as the Institute of Archaeology and Palaeontology. We decided that we needed to own something that was a collective resource for all the structural units, which are the collections of these institutions. Everything else was done around the collections.
When the Academy system fell, many research institutes were simply added to the University. Our opinion was that it made much more sense to develop research connected to archaeology and palaeontology collections together with the museums. It is the same 19th century model that was later separated from the museums. The collections are the foundation. We currently own over 90% of the National collections. We are the main treasury. The idea was to create a system that was interconnected and had one brand.
We must admit that the Soviet system was slightly artificial. While our idea was to make a system that could be adjustable. If you do not adapt to the environment, you will go extinct. Museum reform was the necessity to adapt to the environment. That’s why these various elements were united to make one institution. We created a museum brand to present and position both in Georgia and internationally. Our main target was to create a trustworthy brand. But we tried to demonstrate from the very beginning that an institution must be multi-disciplinary. We are both a treasury and a research institute, but we are also a public place. It is an easy thing to claim, but it is a challenge to connect these functions in real life. As well as connecting art and science.
If you look at our system now, you will see that we have three levels of museums. We have National museums in Tbilisi – the National Art Gallery, the National History Museum. Then we have regional museums, such as Mestia and Svaneti. We are building another one in Polnisi right now. The third level is archaeological sites – Tmanisi, Vani. Currently we are developing a new site that will be next to a monastery complex.
But we do not include just any institution. We have institutions under our wing that have been ours from the very beginning, or ones that we have created ourselves. Each of our structural units are engaged in preservation, research and education, only with different emphases.
RS: This system, described by you, is very unusual. It is my understanding, that you as a National museum perform centralised professionalisation of the sector. Is that so?
DL: Good question. From one point of view, yes, it is vertical, and from another – horizontal management.
RS: How do you manage it?
DL: To be frank, it is still a work in progress. There are several challenges. But what I am really proud of is that more and more young professionals are joining our team. Now, after 10 years, we have a better team.
This model is very pragmatic. The institution spends one upkeep budget to ensure three different activities, which usually take place separately.
We also have a very good relationship with universities. Especially with the State University on a consortium level. The museum is a resource for Master’s and PhD programmes, to provide an example. This means that our specialists receive salaries from the University. It is a win-win situation. The idea is to create a model that works on a wide spectrum using only one resource.
It is a good pragmatic model for the upcoming 5 to 10 years. Later, when a few institutions become more stable, we can consider the thought of autonomy. But right now, we lack resources. We lack human resources. For example, we cannot afford professional, highly trained restorers for every location.
I can tell you what it is that we do. For example, the project Georgia – The Cradle of Winemaking. Wine has an ancient history in Georgia. Through this we tell the philosophy of wine. Last year we organised an exhibition in Bordeaux, France, where we told the history of Georgia through the topic of wine. A beautiful story with beautiful objects. That was a success. But it is not enough. We added a research section to the exhibition catalogue, which was made by Americans, Danes, specialists from Israel supervised by Georgian experts on the history of wine making in Georgia. This is an international scientific step forward. And we received international recognition.
RS: It is true, you have received international recognition in relation to this project.
DL: This is a relatively new story, but it took years to accomplish. We collaborated with international research institutes to realise it. The Government was interested in us presenting this project in Bordeaux as well. While Bordeaux was interested in our exhibition. In the end everyone was a winner.
The important thing is to build the right team. We had a large international exhibition tour, Colhis, in 12 countries, including cities like Washington, New York and Berlin. We were noticed and gained recognition. We did not receive any additional money for it, but our young specialists were a part of it. They learnt a lot. And thus, we represented the Georgian National Museum.
We also recently participated in a Twinning culture programme, where we cooperated with the Prussian Culture Heritage Foundation and not only at the level of directors. Right now, we are using the Berlin model on how to be a part of a city [infrastructure and culture services] system. It is very complicated. We also try to apply these models to regions, not only Tbilisi.
Another thing we started doing is bringing “big names” to Georgia. A couple of days ago we opened a Michelangelo exhibition in the National Art Gallery.
RS: So, you are bringing blockbusters to Georgia?
DL: Step by step. Before that we had Caravaggio, Botticelli.
RS: Is your museum the only big player in Georgia? Are there any private initiatives – museums, galleries?
DL: There is the Tceratelli Moma museum in Tbilisi [Zurab Tsereteli Museum of Modern Art], another museum is being developed not far from here.
RS: These private institutions are a trend in Europe right now.
DL: Everyone has their own niche here. We are an institution of a National level. We are not in competition with others.
Ineta Zelča Sīmansone: In 2014 you presented impressive plans on reconstruction of the museum, which foresaw the development of a museum district, much like the Berlin Museum Island.
DL: A part of the work is already finished, but the city suddenly changed its plans. We have adapted to them. Found new solutions. We have acquired premises comprising an area of 3000 km2. It is going to be a new exhibition hall. We have lost years [for development], but we got additional premises.
RS: You mentioned the Berlin model. Have you followed it as an example since 2004, when you formed your National Museum? Because this work on the centralisation of collections, which you mentioned, is reminiscent of the Berlin museum model.
DL: We can’t work with a copy-paste method. Let’s talk about the differences. The Berlin model works in Berlin – a city. Our model – on a national level throughout the whole country. We have natural history research, which Berlin does not have. These are two significant differences. Additionally, Berlin does not have their own archaeological sites. It is very important to have a good grasp of the local situation.
There are countries with museums that have solid business strategies. We are currently in the process of developing our own. The US has a very strong tradition of public-private partnerships. In Germany, on the other hand, the field of humanitarian research has the most support. Opportunities vary from country to country.
Museums of a national level need to seek partners not only in related institutions, but also in business companies, technology enterprises. For example, the National Museum publishes National Geographic in Georgian. It is supported by a large internet company. The publishing office is in the museum, and my assistant is the editor [of the magazine]. Why is this necessary? National Geographic Georgia has many stories on Georgia, written by the museum. At the same time, we have access to the international communication strategy of the magazine, which helps us a lot and teaches us museum communication. The museum gains a lot, by learning the standards of text creation, it is especially useful when creating exhibition annotations and texts.
We need partners, as the museum cannot ensure all functions by itself.
RS: I understand that you are the largest employer in the cultural sector of Georgia.
DL: It will be so in the future.
RS: Can we return to the topic of wine culture for a bit? Where do you see the museum in five years as a wine broker?
DL: Georgia cannot compete in terms of quantity. We always need to find our little unique niche. Not only in regards to wine. We have already received international recognition for our research on the history of wine.
RS: You have at least two fields in which you are the unsurpassable leaders – archaeology with the homo erectus and wine culture. These two things position you on an international level as the best in the region. What else?
DL: Good question. Another thing is the story of the golden fleece. We execute this in collaboration with international institutions as well, for example, the Getty Research Institute, etc.
IZS: Speaking of the museum management model, do you have a board of trustees?
DL: I have to be honest – we are still working on that. We had that idea in the beginning, but it didn’t work. We are restarting the process now. Our main financer is the Ministry of Culture, but we also receive funds from education, science and regional development foundations. I hope that we will arrive there.
IZS: I ask this question, because we last met in Tartu, where a conference on cultural heritage and creative industries was taking place as part of the Estonian presidency, in which a new management model was discussed, i.e. that museums become foundations.
DL: I agree with this model, but we need to be ready for it.
Estonia had another good example – creative city quarters. It is not a hard thing to develop, but you need to think about cooperation in networks. You need people that are capable of thinking outside the box.
RS: How do you see your role in the political environment of the region? You need to be able to balance continuously. Should the director of the museum be apolitical?
DL: Good question. The director needs to be a state man, not a political person. It is also a never-ending learning process. I learn all the time. It is a really good question. Because it not only concerns the director of the museum, but also the way in which the State prepares officials and leaders for public administration. It is a job. Finding balance. And a challenge. Especially in a brutal environment. The environment in Georgia was unstable for a long time. It is too soon for me to tell this story. I will write about it someday.
Image: nationalgeographic.com