I am desperately trying to remember a case in the history of museum management, when a gallery director would turn much-needed exhibition halls into his private studio in order to paint couple of enormous paintings and then present (and accept!) said enormous paintings into the permanent exposition of the gallery. It seems that such a precedent has occurred for the first time in Armenia (correct me if I'm wrong) just a couple of weeks ago, when the National Gallery director Paravon Mirzoyan officially presented his panneux to the gallery and hung them in one of the most visible spots of the entire building - the 4th floor foyer which leads to the halls containing medieval Armenian frescoes.

The event was a cause of derision among the artistic circles, and quite a few attacks in the press (see here). But of course, this comedy of errors pinpoints to fundamental flaws in the management and use of an extraordinary institution that since its foundation in 1921 has bore the flag of Armenian art for over 90 years (the last ten years the flag has been passing from hand to hand and is in a constant state of a limbo).

Not having witnessed the 32 square meter panneu, which reportedly depicts some kind of a synthesis of 'Armenia' (the second, yet to be painted work will depict 'Artsakh') - I can not judge the artistic quality of Mirzoyan's latest opus. However, what astonishes me is the blatant form of self-promotion by the director of the largest art museum in the country. Mirzoyan has always generously given his works to the museum, which is now bursting with examples of his art. I don't need to explain what this 'official' presence in one of the most venerated artistic repositories of the Caucasus signifies for the market value of Mirzoyan's output.

The gallery has gone through many upheavals in recent years. Restructuring of personnel, claims of theft, illegal money-laundering activities, etc... etc... Mirzoyan's reign in the past seven years or so hasn't been entirely unproductive however (as some critics would note). Under his stewardship the museum hosted an increasingly large slate of important exhibitions, acquired a wholly new department of film (essentially a cinematheque run by Melik Karapetian), activated the publication of highly important catalogues which revealed the many riches of the national art collection and finally some long-due renovation and building maintenance work was done to freshen up the gallery and bring into a semblance of a modern museum.

Yet in other, equally important areas the director's vision leaves a lot to be desired... The constant, blatant misuse of gallery's exhibition spaces to hold retrospective exhibition by artists less than worthy of the honour is the most obvious transgression. I will not shy away from naming at least one such artist - Valmar - a widely ridiculed painter of little consequence, who recently had a large one-man show at the gallery. These exhibitions take place with blind disregard of gallery's long-standing policy that it should only hold retrospectives of major, long-established painters (who are usually dead or in very advanced age).

It is no secret that the director has himself used the gallery to hold two retrospectives of his own, publishing a lavish catalogue, the cost of which was subsidised from gallery's coffers. Meanwhile an important exhibition of Minas Avetisyan, which showcased many hitherto unknown works of was relegated to two pathetic rooms and the catalogue barely even registered on the radar with mere 300 copies seeing the light of day.

All this is taking place while the museum has so far failed to note the major jubilee of Armenia's greatest master of modernism - Yervand Kotchar and seems not to have taken any steps yet for the celebration of Vardges Surenyants' 150th anniversary. Surenyants (1860-1921) is one the most significant Armenian artist of the late 19th early 20th century and is still a consistently strong drawcard for the gallery's visitors. His 1907 painting 'Salome' is undoubtedly one of the very few internationally famous works of Armenian art. Hence this major jubilee is one that should have been noted on an unprecedented scale. Despite a proposed plan for these celebrations in the Ministry of culture, there are no signs yet of it taking place.

While Mirzoyan has stated a number of times that the mission of the gallery is "the study and publication of its collections and Armenian art history in general" (see here) - which supposedly excludes any contemporary art - Mirzoyan and co are actively involved in the propagation of the 'master's' oeuvre for nation's benefit.

When it comes to cultural practices of Azerbaijan, there really isn't much that can 'spring a surprise'. Ranging from the pathetic attempts at appropriation of a long-lost (Christian) cultural civilization (the Afghans) to ruthless and methodical destruction of all remnants of Armenian heritage in Nakhijevan - the most recent of which was the annihilation of the Jugha cemetery - the Azerbaijani government continually proves its relentless enthusiasm towards the construction of a 'national' cultural identity.

However, destroying those annoying cultural traces of your enemy-nation is just one aspect of the job. After all, there isn't much art or culture associated with the name of Azerbaijan, unless you count kitschy performances of neo-orientalist trash-pop at Eurovision as art. But all of that is about to change! The American journal ArtNews reported in their November issue of active plans by Ilham Aliyev to instigate a new cultural policy, which would "transform Baku into a cultural destination".

The linchpin of Aliev's magnum-opus is apparently a new museum of contemporary art that would rival the Bilbao Gugenheim in its scale and ambition. Its function is to present "the best art of the region". Presumably this excludes Armenia.

While Aliev and co are willing to spend so much of their oil money on these gargantuan projects, the process of turning culturally backward countries (Dubai and Saudi Arabia come to mind) into Art conglomerates, is not a one way street. Like in any good marriage, the true head of the family is not the most obvious one. Mr Thomas Kren, the ex-director of Guggenheim and now the head of a consulting firm, zeroed in his attentions on Baku after 'insistent' approaches from Aliev's team. Kren is an essential part of many similar projects, including a new 'destination' museum in Vilnius, Lithuania. What is symptomatic about the current state of the art world is Kren's attitude (as reported in this article). He readily admits that Baku has the kind of infrastructure that would be able to sustain a major centre of contemporary art. Thus, the trajectory of cultural marketing is made infinitely clear: Art goes where the Money flows.

Of course, Art, which is never created in places like Dubai and Bilbao anyway, is really besides the point as numerous new museums of contemporary art have recently demonstrated. Nobody really goes to Bilbao to look at the Art. What matters is the destination and the aura that the marketing team can create around Ghery's building and the whole endeavor.

What is curious of course is that Azerbaijan's sudden drive towards cultural emancipation coincides with the rather reluctant and somewhat bipolar activisation of artistic life in Yerevan (for let's face it, it doesn't occur anywhere else in Armenia) as well as the important archaeological discoveries in Artsakh. The recent projects of the Lincy and especially the Cafesdjian Foundations have certainly been attention grabbing, while Armenian artists in and outside the country continue to showcase art of the highest caliber. Now that Yerevan has not one, but TWO major contemporary art museums, the artistic gravitas of the city, in-spite of its poor economic status, is the most undeniable in the region. The Cafesdjian Museum is arguably the first example of a destination museum in the Caucasus and its 'strange' building has been wholeheartedly embraced by the city's population, while its two nascent exhibitions have had record-breaking crowds.

The difference is that in Armenia, most of these projects are based on purely private initiatives, while in Azerbaijan they are becoming part of the national[ist] policy.

Whatever the future of Baku's bid for cultural supremacy in the region, there is no doubt that Aliev's move to sprinkle his country with museums of all kind is yet another political maneuver. Whether it'll work in further sidetracking the West from the realities of the region is open to question, but one can't fault their approach.

Perhaps Mr. Sargsyan should make a note to see Mr. Kren next time he ventures overseas on a shopping trip?

I think it was quite obvious from the start that the ambitious Cafesdjian Art Center project was simply never going to be a second Gulbenkian Museum. One could never really assemble a collection of such outstanding caliber anymore, but that's besides the point. The problem with the Cafesdjian foundation is that it jumped in the turbulent waters a tad too soon. There was no clear prerogative of what this museum was or was attempting to be. A museum dedicated to glass? An international contemporary art museum? Or an interesting site for temporary exhibitions and events... Throughout the seven years that the project has been in development there was an evident lack of direction. The enormous museum building was almost communist-size in its ambitions and scale. Did they stop to think what they were going to fill it with or how they would sustain it? Perhaps not, for there was so much money on the plate and everyone wanted a piece as evidenced in this reportage from www.168.am

All of these issues glaringly surfaced during the recent opening of the centre. The gargantuan museum building has been temporarily abandoned, while the Cafesdjian Foundation focuses on the existing spaces in the Cascade complex.

I was not fortunate enough to be present at the opening, which also included the first ever exhibition of works by Arshile Gorky in Armenia, from the Cafesdjian collection. But, the event was of sufficient interest to Michel Kimmelman of 'The New Yorker' to make the trip. The article is fascinating in the way it exposes the predominant feelings of Western and particularly American cultural (and dare I say political) elite towards projects such as the Cafesdjian museum. Kimmelman is clearly amused and slightly impressed with an endeavor that he surely considers a folly on a grandiose scale. He goes on to criticise the architectural complex of the Cascade, specifically outlining the "bizarrely" disjointed exhibition spaces. Mr. Kimmelman fails to note that the numerous changes and additions to the Cascad comples were undertaken by the Museum's current director - Mr. de Marsche - who was undoubtedly instrumental in bringing Kimmelman to grace the opening ceremony and deliver a lecture.
The critic goes on to describe a dispiriting trip to the National Art Gallery of Armenia. Widely considered to be one of the best collections of art in the entire ex-Soviet Union and in Middle East, the NGA only impressed Kimmelman with its strange 'un-museum' like building (mmm... last time I checked most museums in US look either like offices or Parlament building), creaking floorboards, grumpy old ladies and lack of visitors. Fair enough - it's not exactly Mr. Kimmelman's cup of tea maybe, but for an art critic, he should have at least made an effort to visit the first-ever museum of Contemporary Art in USSR - The Igitian Center. Or at least mention the incredibly vibrant, I would even say buoyant cultural scene of Yerevan which is overflowing with festivals, exhibitions and art events... but no... that would only detract from the persistently bleak picture Kimmelman wants to paint. Mrs de Marsche, currently running the Cafesjian Center's shop (among other things) gives him a helping hand by retelling an encounter in a cafe, which oh so tragically illustrated the woeful state of the public health care system in Armenia. Kind of ironic coming from an American journalist? He emphasises the fact the future of the museum is already under a big question mark, because it costs a lot to run and one can't expect much help from the government. Again, I'm puzzled. Many (most) of the museums and art institutions in US have little or no help from the government and run due to the continuing support from a board of trustees and a foundation set up by people such as Mr. Getty and Mr. Norton Simon. Surely, the Cafesdjian Museum with its significant private backing, the most desired real-estate spot in the entire country and a pleathora of other financial tie-ins, should at least be able to insure a steady stream of mid-level exhibitions and events for the next ten years?

What perplexes me is the condescending, sneering sentiment I see in American journalism whenever the issue of culture or cultural activities in 'third-world' countries rears its head. Does Kimmelman want to suggest that the Cafesdjian Art Center has no place in Armenia because art is of little or no consequence in a country that sturggles to survive economically? Or does he simply think that Cafesdjian's money and art would have been better placed in some Mid-Western US town? Or maybe it's the 'incongruity' of a small country like Armenia having a large and important contemporary art center? All I can say is this; had Kimmelman spent a few more days in the country (as oppossed to two) and got to know it first-hand instead of listening to more garbage by foreign diplomats his reaction might have been "where else but in Armenia?"

If you haven't read it already, the full article is here.

This interesting news item just appeared on the culturally alert Hetq.am site.
Reporting on the press conference held by Stepan Nalbandian, co-director of the ‘Association of Armenian Historical Monuments Architects’, the article goes on to describe in Nalbandian’s words the terrible condition of most of the historic monuments in Armenia. The issue of regular up-keep of these sites presents constant problems, as unlike Europe or even Middle-East, most of these monuments are very far from urban centers (such as the churches and monasteries) are often extremely difficult to access (try getting to Tatev monastery or Khndzoresk village in winter) and are more often than not, impossible to “use”.
The issue is not unique to Armenia of course, as most countries with a rich heritage face an ever-growing challenge to maintain and preserve it. But the fact that enormously significant monuments such as Sanahin, which is listed on the UNESCO World Heritage list, is almost totally left to the folly of natural elements and the ignorant vandals… this fact is simply beyond comprehension.
Sanahin is not nearly as isolated as Tatev or most of the other churches. It’s about two hours drive from Yerevan, is right next to a very large village, is a significant tourist attraction with thousands of visitors every year… thus the cruel neglect inflicted upon this truly breathtaking complex speaks to me of a much bigger, insidious problem. And this problem is the general indifference of the Armenian people towards the material remnants of their history and the cultural heritage of their ancestors. The utter lack of respect by today’s generation of Armenians is reflected everywhere – in the detached cultural potpourri of Yerevan’s bazaar-like ‘New’ architecture, the presence of enormous rubbish heaps in churches, graveyards and archaeological sites such as Shengavit and Armavir, the idiotic ‘mementoes’ carved or painted on ancient stones by ‘appreciative’ tourists and the ironic rust that eats away the metal plaques that read ‘Protected by the Government’ put up during the 60s and 70s…
For a country relying so much on its ancient culture as a cornerstone of its international façade, this situation is clearly beyond ludicrous. Solutions that are realistic, achievable (even in the economically challenged Armenia) and sustainable do exist. Implementing them is an entirely different matter. First and foremost Armenia lacks the nexus of passionate individuals (with the exception of the few lone renagades such as Samvel Karapetian of RAA) who can come together and help educate the masses at large about their responsibility not only to their past but also their future.
In a future series of articles we will look at a number of historical sites in Armenia and broadly analyse the various avenues of their maintenance and development. The first of these will be a look at the incredible cultural strata of the northern city of Talin. Meanwhile, if you can read Armenian, take a look at the article here...