Some Issues Concerning Contemporary Bulgarian Museums

Some issues concerning contemporary Bulgarian Museums

Gabriela Petkova

January 2004

The historical development of Bulgarian lands has always been determined by one major factor; their geographical position at the crossroads between Europe and Asia. This placement is the reason behind a number of events and is why so many cultures have sought possession. Bulgaria's placement has shaped the particular direction of its historical development. The so many cultures known to be part of its history are the reason for the abundance of artefactual evidence that can be found today. Unfortunately this abundance is almost unknown to museum professionals and the general public throughout the world. The number of museums in Bulgaria is decreasing along with the number of people that visit them and the quality of the actual exhibitions contained within them.

There are 220 museums in Bulgaria[1], either of national, regional or local importance. The majority of them contain historical, archaeological or ethnographic collections. But how are they organized and what are the reasons for their present state? – these questions are extremely pertinent when discussing the present state of museums in Bulgaria.

Because Bulgaria is so rich in resources: heritage sites, unique rites, customs, arts and crafts, it would be expected that the country would be a major visitor attraction, but this is simply not the case. A SWOT analysis (Attachment) of the present state of museums in Bulgaria shows that there are many more weaknesses than strengths. It also makes clear that funding, although an important issue is not the only way to improve the situation.

Bulgaria was a closed country with 45 years of communist regime. Strict party directives had to be followed – even concerning museum activities. As a result all museums in Bulgaria were organized in the same way. Most museums showed purely the life and activities of some local “hero” or, in the case of national museums, they had at least one section showing the glorious activities of the communist party. This was meant to inspire pride in communist achievements. During the years of communism no work could be published unless it followed communist rules, i.e. everything in the communist world was good; everything behind the iron curtain was bad. For instance Pecheva and Raichev published in 1955 a paper[2] giving practical instruction to the curators. According to this book the curators ‘must create museums of socialist type representing ideas based on the principles of the Marks-Lenin visions for a museum exhibition’ (1955:6).

Such ideas could only provoke the apparition of a unified and centralized museum system, where everything was organized according to communist rules without any possibility for change, personal imagination or the vision of curators. School groups visiting these museums only went with the purpose of studying the heroic acts of some communist activist of which they should be proud and inspired. There was no possibility for exchange of expertise with non-communist countries. Such places were taboo; not to be visited and certainly not used to exchange knowledge about the running of museums. That is why, when the communist regime fell in 1989, the museums system had to quickly re-examine all communist related elements in its organization and try to change things. Unfortunately a major factor in the successful running of a museum – finance - was highly insufficient and even today many museums are still struggling to survive, never mind managing to present high quality exhibitions. However as people have began to travel more museum knowledge has been gleaned from other countries and there have been attempts to implement these new found ideas in Bulgaria. But still the country is far from having a structured, purposeful museum environment. New things have been learned, and new ways of presenting artefacts, but this is not enough to make the museum a place to attract visitors.

Such negative issues are not helped by the lack of proper legislation and normative basis. Legislation from 1969 is still in place which has had only a few changes, and this is very much an obstacle for museums. This legislation was created when the communist regime was in its apotheosis. It is not a good working tool for museum development. Since the fall of communism in 1989 governments have not tried to change this legislation for the better, until March 2002 when the current government put forward for discussion and adoption a completely new museum law, but since then it has not even been discussed. The 1969 law remains, and is a major factor in the prosperity of treasure-hunters and illegal looters. It is also why some 150 000 artefacts leave the country[3] each year only to end up in private collections; never to be seen by anyone other than a few ‘connoisseurs’ and their friends.

The ICOM definition of museum is:

A non-profit making, permanent institution, in the service of society and its development, and open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates, and exhibits, for the purpose of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of man and its environment.

Bulgaria is an ICOM member but at present this statement does not seem valid for Bulgarian museums. Steps need to be taken in order to make institutions progress quickly and be ready for museum organisation ‘novelties’.

This lack of useful legislation is the starting point for our case. It is obvious that without a relevant normative basis we cannot expect improvement. Legislation is the most urgent measure required. The current government must take action in order to give us contemporary, adequate and working regulations based on the knowledge of countries proficient in the running of museums.

Research undertaken for this work has made it clear that the historical development of Bulgarian museums is not known by museum professionals today. Yet there are many positive aspects in the historical development of Bulgarian museums which could serve as a model for museums today. For example some of the legislative regulations which were in place before communist regime proved to be a success in a very difficult social and economical situation. So why not using some of this legislation, build upon current ideas. The people who have worked in Bulgarian museums prior to communism, although never trained professionally in museum basics, were so enthusiastic and willing to create European type museums that in fact they managed to create them in a very short period. Museums directors had clear ideas about what a museum should be; how to improve its efficiency; how to increase visitors number in order to make the museum institution a place to provoke pride, to inspire and educate; and make a museum a place for enjoyment. That is why it is so important to know the historical development of Bulgarian museums – to extract and adapt ideas that work and put them into practice.

Lack of funding is indeed a major factor in the current state of museums in Bulgaria. There are 21 national museums which are financed directly by the Ministry of Culture. Other museums are run by local municipalities. The municipalities are autonomous when deciding the subsidies for museums, but funds are decreasing each year. According to a report prepared for the needs of the Council of Europe by N. Liebgott (2002) concerning the present state of the Bulgarian museums “the economic resources used for museum purposes in Bulgaria have fallen drastically since 1991. In terms of actual levels,…..the state subsidy via the ministry of culture and via subsidies to the municipal budgets has fallen to bellow 30% of the figures for 1991“. Unfortunately the passive existence of the Bulgarian museums and their employees make ideas such as how to increase the funds sound quite alien. Entrance fees are still considered as the main source of income for museums. Visitors are divided into Bulgarians and foreigners, and for foreigners the museum entrance fee is usually four times higher than for Bulgarians. The number of visitors to museums has also drastically fallen which has influenced the main source of income. The idea of a funding tool such as sponsorship or donation only recently started making headway in the museum world but companies in the private sector are not attracted by the idea of sponsorship because donations to museums are not tax-deductible and VAT has to be paid. Other possible sources of income for museums such as museum shops, cafeterias or hiring out buildings are still very unpopular.

So, the usual and most common excuse for the present state of museums in Bulgaria is the lack of finances. In fact this is far from being the main reason. Many museum professionals in Bulgarian museums are people that have worked there for many years and are still working the way they used to during the communist regime – a time when there was no need to think but just do what you were told. Because of this it is common to have such people going to work for no reason other than to pick up a salary at the end of the month. The excuse is: “There is no money for a good, European quality exhibition, there is no money to go abroad and study the foreign know-how, there is no money for advertising of the existing exhibits, which could attract some visitors therefore some money”. So there is no enthusiasm, no imagination, no creativity – just passive existence. And this starts at the top with the Ministry of the Culture. There are actually no statistics in the Ministry relating to the total number of museum visitors annually in Bulgaria. I was told by them that if I needed this kind of information then I should ask each museum myself as they would have some sort of approximate statistics. The National Statistical Institute updates information about museums in Bulgaria approximately every 3 years, but the information collated by them concerns only the number of museums, the number of the staff and the number of artefacts. But this is not sufficient information to make informed decisions. My own results, which were obtained with some difficulty, were also quite a surprise. Many museums consider visitor numbers only in term of either Bulgarians or foreigners. Once again, information that can be of little use. No information is obtained regarding the age or interests of visitors for example. Such a visitor profile is very important because it gives immediate answers to questions relating to which groups of the population do or do not visit, which in turn would lead to work being undertaken by the museum to attract visitors from the segments who do not usually come.

Apparently there is a lack of concern relating to not only the number of visitors, but also their age, status and interests. Having a well maintained structured database holding such information can help improve the variety of exhibitions and attract groups from the population that are not well represented.

In the past decades enormous changes have taken place in museums and galleries across the world. The thrust of the shift are clear – museums are changing from being static storehouses for artefacts into active learning environments for people. This change in function means a radical reorganisation of the whole culture of the museum – staff structures, attitudes and work patterns must all mutate to accommodate new ideas and new approaches. In addition to looking inward to their collections, museums are now looking outward towards their audiences; where in the past collections were researched, now audiences are also being researched; the balance of power in museums is shifting from those who care for objects to include, and often prioritise, those who care for people. The older ideology of conservation must now share its directing role with the newer ideology of collaboration. (Hooper-Greenhill 2000:1)

This extract from Eilean Hooper–Greenhill’s book Museums and their visitors makes the deplorable state and level of visitor care in Bulgarian museums immediately obvious. In countries such as the UK, museum professionals have long built strategies where the visitor is at the centre of activities, whilst in Bulgaria museums are still just ‘static storehouses’. Unattractive, old fashioned expositions with non-existing interpretation; the lack of elementary conditions to make the visitor feel comfortable; the attitude of museum staff (in many cases rude); and the inaccessibility of museums (no museum in Bulgaria is accessible for disabled people), are just few of the components that answer the question as to why the number of visitors in Bulgarian museums is decreasing. In simple terms there is nothing to attract visitors. During the communist regime statistics collated showed an increase in visitor numbers each year. The reasons for these increases are clear but certainly not helpful in formulating new strategies. The majority of visitors were school groups and organised groups of employees who were forced to visit exhibitions. Visits were obligatory and this ensured an artificially high percentage of visitors. Today, nobody is obliged to visit a museum and more importantly there is nothing to make people wish to visit. This is why visitor numbers are decreasing. There has also been a decline in the tourist industry. Visitors have recently started rising again, at least to sea and sky resorts, but not to the rest of the country. In previous years there were tourists from other ex-communist countries but today Bulgaria relies only on local people and they simply do not visit museums unless there is a major attraction, such as a gold treasure or other artefact, the likes of which spend most of their time in touring exhibitions abroad. According to the same report by N. Liebgott “the visitor-figures for the Bulgarian museums have now fallen on average to under one fifth of the highest level in 1991-1995[4]. In museums where one could earlier calculate between 800 000 and 1 million visitors per year, the numbers have fallen to 150 000 - 200 000.”