THE FUTURE OF MUSEUMS OF CITIES 1 Book of Proceedings CAMOC Annual Conference 2018 September 2019 www.camoc.icom.museum 2 ISBN: 978-92-9012-471-9 THE FUTURE OF MUSEUMS OF CITIES Camoc Annual Conference Frankfurt, Germany, June 2018 Book of Proceedings 3 Conference and workshop organizer: ICOM CAMOC Special thanks to our partners ICOM Germany Historical Museum Frankfurt 4 INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR THE COLLECTIONS AND ACTIVITIES OF MUSEUMS OF CITIES Ŏ Ŏ Ŏ Ŏ Ŏ Ŏ _‚rĹņņm;|‰ouhĺb1olĺl†v;†lņ1-lo1ņ v;1u;|-u‹ĺ1-lo1ĺb1olŠ]l-bѴĺ1ol ‰‰‰ĺ=-1;0oohĺ1olņl†v;†lvo=1bঞ;v _‚rvĹņņ|‰b‚;uĺ1olņ1-lo1ōb1ol _‚rvĹņņbmv|-]u-lĺ1olņbmv|-ō1-lo1 _‚rvĹņņ‰‰‰ĺѴbmh;7bmĺ1olņ]uo†rvņƓƔƖƑѵƐƏņruoCѴ; © Copyright by CAMOC:m|;um-ঞom-Ѵollb‚;;=ouoѴѴ;1ঞomv-m71ঞˆbঞ;v o=†v;†lvo=bঞ;vķƑƏƐƖ u-r_b1Design: bm]†Ѵ†m7-v Cover photo:"1_m;;h†];Ѵm7†v|u‹lo7;Ѵš$_bfv)oŒ-hņ ISBN: 978-92-9012-471-9 This e-book is available for download free of charge from the CAMOC website (_‚r‫ث‬ńńm;|‰ouhĸb1olĸl†v;†lń1-lo1ńr†0Ѳb1-ࢼomvńo†uň0oohvń) or upon request at: v;1u;|-u‹ĸ1-lo1ĸb1olŞ]l-bѲĸ1ol 5 $_; †|†u;o=†v;†lvo=bঞ;v Editor: ;Ѵ;m-"-ˆbࣀ Revision and proofreading -m†;Ѵou-bv "1b;mঞC1ollb‚;; -m;u1_o‰ķbv|oub1-Ѵ†v;†l u-mh=†u| -|ubmb;h;ķ;ul-m‹ o-m!o1-bѴ0;u|ķ&ņ †uor;-m;|‰ouho=b|‹†v;†lv o-m-"o†v-om|;buoķ_-bu -|_;ubm;ĺoѴ;ķņ(b1;_-bu b1oѴ;ˆ-m bfhķ(b1;_-bu !;m࣐;bv|;l-h;uķo-u7;l0;u =vbmѴ|-‹Ѵbķ";1u;|-ub-|Ő=oul;u";1u;|-u‹ő ;mm‹Ő_†mŊmbő_b†ķo-u7;l0;u ;Ѵ;m-"-ˆb1ķ";1u;|-u‹ $_;om=;u;m1;u]-mbv-ঞomollb‚;; ;Ѵ;m-"-ˆb1ķ";1u;|-u‹ -‹Ѵ-;মķ$u;-v†u;u ;mm‹Ő_†mŊmbő_b†ķo-u7;l0;u b1oѴ;ˆ-m bfhķ(b1;_-bu -m;u1_o‰ķbv|oub1-Ѵ†v;†l u-mh=†u|ķo1-Ѵu]-mbv;u !;m࣐;bv|;l-h;uķo-u7;l0;u o-m-"o†v-om|;buoķ_-bu 6 CONTENTS 09  JOANA SOUSA MONTEIRO uol|_;_-bu 10    "(‫ݫ‬ ;uvr;1ঞˆ;vom|_;=†|†u;o=l†v;†lvo=1bঞ;v KEYNOTE ARTICLE 14   JOAN ROCA I ALBERT ||_;uovvuo-7vo=†Ѵ|†u-Ѵ-m7&u0-moѴb1b;vĺ !;|_bmhbm]|_;1b|‹-m7|_;1b|‹l†v;†l PART 1: THE CITY MUSEUM AND ITS PROFESSIONALS 28  CHET ORLOFF omvb7;ubm]-†uub1†Ѵ†l=ou$u-bmbm]b|‹†v;†l"|-@ 32  ANNEMARIE DE WILDT Ő";Ѵ=ő;mvouv_br 37   CRISTINA MIEDICO ƑƏƔƏņv;†lv‹r;uŊomm;1|;7|oѴ7vr;-hĺ $_;|_;uvĽˆob1;v=uol-m1b;m|ol0-u7‹ 42  SIBYLLE DIENESCH u]-mbv-ঞom oѴѴo‰vom|;m| PART 2: IN THE MAKING 50  VALERIA PICA  †|†u;†v;†l=ou- bv-rr;-u;7b|‹ĵ -v|-m7ru;v;m|bm7-l-];7_bv|oub1-Ѵ1;m|u;vĹ7;mঞ|‹-m7;|_b1-Ѵbvv†;v 58    ORIT ENGELBERG-BARAM AND ELAD BETZALELI ;ˆ;Ѵorl;m|$o‰mvŋ uoloˆ;u|‹|ouo]u;vvķ uol ;rubˆ-ঞom|o†Ѵঞˆ-ঞomĹ v|-0Ѵbv_bm]m;‰1b|‹l†v;†lvbmvu-;Ѵ 65   TONER STEVENSON AND PAUL BARTON †-mঞ=‹bm]o‰†v;†lvlruoˆ;);ѴѴŊ;bm]Ĺ ˆbvbom=ou-=†|†u;1b|‹l†v;†l 72   PAUL SPIES AND BRINDA SOMMER uolm|;u-1ঞˆ;v|oovঞm]Ĺ -uঞ1br-ঞombm|_;;uѴbm;Š_b0bঞom-||_;†l0oѴ7| ou†l 76  LARS DE JAEGHER AND PAUL VAN DE LAAR $_;"h‹bv|_;blb|ĺ$_;Skyline;Š_b0bঞom !$Ɛ‫"ث‬$$ ҁ ҁ$ ҁ!$$+&" &" $ !!$ " 88   JAN GERCHOW o‰|o;1ol;-!;Ѵ;ˆ-m|Ѵ-1;bm|_;b|‹ĵ $_;m;‰bv|oub1-Ѵ†v;†l u-mh=†u| 95   SONG INHO omv|;ѴѴ-ঞomo=|_;b|‹;-7bm]|obv|oub1-Ѵuol;m-7;ŋ "†v|-bm-0Ѵ;=†|†u;o=|_;";o†Ѵ†v;†lo=bv|ou‹ 7 100    JOANA SOUSA MONTEIRO ;1olbm]-b|‹†v;†lĺ ;‰-rruo-1_;vomঞl;ķr;orѴ;-m7†u0-m _;ub|-];-||_;†v;†lo=bv0om 106   ELENA PÉREZ RUBIALES AND THE MUHBA TEAM |ol;ĺ)ouh;u_o†vbm]-v-r-uঞ1br-ঞˆ;m;‰0u-m1_ o=-u1;Ѵom-b|‹†v;†l 116  NICOLE VAN DIJK 1ঞˆ;oѴѴ;1ঞm]-m7|_; †|†u;o=b|‹†v;†lv PART 4: OTHER CASE STUDIES 123  IVAN GRINKO u-m7bm]o=|_;b|‹-m7†v;†lbC1-ঞomo=&u0-m"r-1;Ĺ $_;;Šr;ub;m1;o=!†vvb-ml†v;†lv 131  INGA SARMA †ul-Ѵ-b|‹†v;†lŋ†uu;m|vv†;v-m7 †|†u;_-ѴѴ;m];v 136  CHUNNI CHIU (JENNY) u;-ঞm]†Ѵ|†u-Ѵ;ub|-];bmb|‹†v;†lvĹ1-v;v|†7‹=uol$-b‰-m 144  PEDRO PEREIRA LEITE AND JUDITE PRIMO bv0omŋ$_;!oѴ;o=†Ѵ|†u-Ѵ bˆ;uvb|‹=ou"†v|-bm-0Ѵ;oll†mbঞ;v 122 PART 4: OTHER CASE STUDIES 123 BRANDING OF THE CITY AND MUSEUMIFICATION OF URBAN SPACE: THE EXPERIENCE OF RUSSIAN MUSEUMS ABSTRACT The topic of branding of territories is a topic of enduring relevance; for instance, the case of Bilbao and the influence of the museum on the formation of the city image is regularly recalled in articles and discussions. However, the time when an original museum building could, by itself, become a brand of the city has already passed. It does not mean that the museum has exhausted its significance as one of the main tools of “soft power”. On the contrary, its importance for the branding of territories keeps increasing. As modern practice shows, museums can form not only national but also urban identities, with equal success and thus become a framework for a complex system of local images and narratives. The brand as an identity today is formed not only at the level of public statements, made by administration representatives, alongside with the use of the official identity (logo, colours), but also in everyday space, which implies the need for the museum to enter the city space and for its museumification. In this article, the author would like to highlight, once more, the role of the museum in the formation of a sustainable brand of the territory, to show examples from Eastern Europe and, finally, to analyse the experience of museums working alongside the urban space to produce and maintain a certain brand. In addition to the analysis of direct tools, the author seeks to highlight a series of problematic issues that arise from working with the formation of a brand in Russian cities. In the article, the author addresses the often ignored basic principles and strategies for the integration of museums into the urban space. Key words: Museum, territory branding, museumification, intangible heritage, Russian Federation, cultural practices IVAN GRINKO "!$&!ķov1o‰];m1‹ for Tourism 124 The past is not necessary in order to live in it, the past is a well, from which we draw water to act in the present. D. Berger, The Art of Seeing Introduction The topic of the branding of territories is still up to date, and the influence of the museum in the formation of the image of the city, such as in the case of Bilbao, is regularly recalled in articles and discussions. However, the time when an original museum building could, by itself, become a brand of the city has already passed. Even though the idea of the museum as a non-standard dominant architectural landmark, symbolising and promoting the city, has not been entirely exhausted (a vivid example is the building of the Museum of Wine in Bordeaux), it raises quite legitimate skepticism and doubts in terms of efficiency, because “for every Guggenheim museum there are dozens of costly failed projects”(Glaeser, 2012: 110). At the Arseniev Museum (Vladivostok). © Ivan Grinko At the same time, this does not mean that the museum has exhausted its significance as one of the main tools of “soft power” in the city. On the contrary, its value for the branding of territories keeps increasing (Lord and Blankenberg, 2015: 272). The last decade has become increasingly popular with the concept of brand of the territory as a competitive identity (Deffner and Metaxas, 2005; Anholt, 2007: 149; Vizgalov, 2011: 160). Once, the presence of museums designated one of the key elements for building imaginary communities (Anderson, 2006). As modern practice shows, museums can become a framework for a complex system of local visual images and narratives, by forming not only national but also equally successful urban identities. Moreover, the heritage, or rather, its interpretation, is in itself a form of identity (Smith, 2006: 368). Whatever the new conceptual approaches to a brand may be, the main trends in the leisure economy point out to the need to involve the historical and cultural heritage in the branding of territories. The demand for cultural tourism continues to grow, competition in the tourism market is increasing, and tourists’ requests for authenticity and diversity are also increasing (Deepak, 2010: 225). At the same time, nobody has negated the role of the museum as an effective valorisation tool (Kopytoff, 2006), which is applicable to the city. The museum plays a unique role not only by trying to collect the image of the city but also by creating authenticity. In an ideal model, a contemporary museum should work immediately in three dimensions: 1) to preserve the historical and cultural heritage, mythology and images of the territory (past); 2) to form a local community at its base (present); 3) to create a brand of the city, that is, a vector of development (future). In fact, most Russian museums are, at best, limited to the first dimension, but this does not negate the obvious idea: Museums are a unique resource for a better understanding of this city. In addition, they can become a platform for planning the urban future (Jones, 2008: 10). There are changes in the understanding of the role of the museum for branding the territory: from the static visual dominant (landmark) to the active subject of the city formation (place-maker; Lord and Blankenberg, 2015). In addition to the formation of urban identity, the museumification of the urban space is always associated with another extremely important factor – the quality of the urban environment. Empowering space with symbolic value always carries a positive effect on the attitude towards that space among its consumers. The participation of museums in this process is conditioned not only by the benevolence of experts but also by their direct interest – for them, it is an obvious 125 opportunity to show their contribution to the economic development of the territory and the improvement of the quality of life, as explicitly stated in the latest international framework documents (Council of Europe, 2005; UNESCO, 2016). In this article, the author would like to analyse the experience of museums working alongside the urban space to produce and maintain the brand of the territory. This article is primarily based on materials from Russian museums. Before addressing the instrumental issues, it is important to highlight the problematic series that emerges from working with branding in Russian cities. In addition to the obvious problems with the formal technical elements described earlier (Bandarin and Van Oers, 2012: 225), we note fundamental problems at different levels that hamper the process of territorial branding through the use of local heritage: ƒ a lack of city museums, that is to say, museums that work directly with urban heritage and are centres of urban memory. Often enough, city museums are absent even from large cities (Rostov-on-Don, Kazan, Voronezh, Chelyabinsk, etc.). Their role in large cities is often carried out by regional museums. Here we find an obvious contradiction: it is unclear what the museum brand refers to – the region or the city? At the same time, it should be noted that, today, all the museums will be included in the work on the museumification of the city, regardless of their profile. ƒ they are not based on the tradition and local historical narrative. Often, museums relay an all-Russian / Soviet narrative, using local collections, and do not try to create the history of their own city. ƒ the denial of a difficult dilemma, that is, they must choose whether to support or to refute the stereotypes about the city. Unfortunately, this problem stems from the unwillingness of domestic museums to work with “difficult heritage” or negative images, which entails a certain technological backwardness: the inability to beat difficult moments in an analytical or even humorous way (Grinko, 2017). Tools. The city represented in the museum exhibition Naturally, the inclusion of the museum in the museumification of the urban space begins with the museum itself. Therefore, first and foremost, we will consider the options for reflecting the images of the city in the exhibition. The image of the city in the form of a traditional layout is still relevant (for example, the layout of Krakow in the Museum of the History of Polish Jews, the POLIN, or the layout of the city in the Amsterdam Canal Museum), but it can receive a new reading, for example, through colour illumination. A successful combination of the layout with digital technologies can be found in the Museum of Athens: the spotlighting of buildings on the city layout is accompanied by photos and video content projected next to it on a wall. These are all basic ways for the city’s fractalisation and its multidimensional perception (Nikolaeva, 2014: 219). The principles for selecting critical elements of the urban space have been formulated long ago, and there have been no fundamental changes in this case. We are only able to repeat that they are: - paths: the main streets, railways, etc.; - areas: pronounced neighbourhoods, communities, etc., which have a special character; - nodes: strategic meeting points – squares, intersections, stations, etc.; - edges: clear transitional zones or linear boundaries, for example, shorelines and green zones; - landmarks: material objects serving as reference points, signs, high buildings, buildings of unusual architecture, etc. (Lynch, 1960). An interesting effect is provided by a combination of different approaches. The Ivanovo Regional Art Museum used photographs of Constructivist buildings – From the Boris Yeltsin Museum. © Ivan Grinko 126 one of the main images of the city – to decorate the exhibition space, in which both authentic photographs from the mid-twentieth century and paintings with the same architectural dominants were presented. This example proves the fact that museums of any profile should participate in the formation of the city brand, and not only by regarding local lore. It is also important to note that the images of the city in a museum space should not be reduced solely to overviews or mock-ups. It is necessary to use more actively the traditional elements of regional identity. Thus, the Museum of the History of Catalonia, at the exhibition dedicated to the 300th anniversary of the loss of independence of the region, designed the walls in the orange-red colours of the Catalan flag. In the Museum of the City of Warsaw, a whole section of the exhibition is assigned to various objects bearing the official symbol of the city, as depicted on its coat of arms – a mermaid. Such images do not have to be official. In fact, at the Arseniev Museum (Vladivostok), the exhibition begins with an installation of items symbolically associated with the sea: a helm, a sea bell, an anchor – showing the inseparable connection between the city, the fleet and the sea. The Museum of Izhevsk managed to combine two city images into one art object: the visitors are greeted by Alena Sobinoy’s huge fresco Earth – Izhevsk, depicting the city at the beginning of the last century, and it is made of Izhevsk mud – an unofficial and ironic symbol of the city. At the Landscape Museum (Ples). © Ivan Grinko Sometimes, the details come to the fore, and they are no less important in forming a complete impression. For example, the Lights of Moscow Museum exhibits the history of the development of street lanterns. In the Moscow Avant-garde Museum (the Shabolovka Gallery), the wall of one of the halls is dotted with material evidence of communal life – from hangers and kitchen shelves to ventilation grilles. Naturally, a special and very important role in the formation of the image of the city and, accordingly, urban identity is played by maps. The author has already turned to the topic of using maps in the museum space (Grinko and Shevtsova, 2015), but, now, focuses on cases related specifically to the urban space. Maps not only can be independent exhibits (see the symbolic map in the Helsinki Museum) but they also serve as a spectacular design solution for the exhibition space (Torun Museum of History, Bremen Museum). In addition, their application to the floor of the exhibition halls allows the visitor and the exhibits to be placed in the symbolic space of the city. In the Museum of the City of Zagreb, the map of the historical centre of the city on the floor is combined with mock-ups of historical buildings, placed taking into account the real topography. In the Museum of Moscow, on a large map of the post-Soviet space, visitors were asked, with the help of small stickers, to indicate where their parents were born. Such a simple practice showed well the system of forming the population of Moscow in the twentieth century, in part reducing the migrantophobia characteristic of Moscow of the 2000s. In addition to reflecting the image of the city, maps could be used to solve applied exhibition tasks. In 2017, the Perm Art Gallery made a new label format for the exhibition Permian Gods. On the labels was a mini-map of the Perm region, where the point of discovery of the object was indicated. In addition to the fact that this move greatly simplified the visitor’s perception of the material, it also helped to form a clear vision of the territory. Museum and its surrounding area The next stage of the work with the urban space is the cultural development of the adjacent territories. 127 In the Ivan the Great Belltower Museum (2008), the entrance to the observation deck and the view over Moscow became, in fact, the logical part of the exhibition, and this trend is now intensifying. A very interesting case with similar polysemantic assimilation of species can be found at the Museum of the first Russian President Boris Yeltsin (Yekaterinburg). In the hall of the museum, which tells about freedom of conscience, a pair of binoculars is located near the panoramic window overlooking the city, through which one can view the Temple on the Blood, one of the main temples of the city. However, there is another subtext here: the temple is located at the site of Ipatiev House, demolished exactly when Boris Nikolayevich [Yeltsin] was the mayor. Turning now to the direct development of the surrounding space by the museum, it is necessary to mention the project of the Anna Akhmatova Museum in the Fountain House in Saint Petersburg. The museum placed a mural with a portrait of the poet near the arch leading to the museum from Liteiny Prospekt. Not only did the museum designate its territory but it also included one of the most famous persons of St. Petersburg’s culture in the city space. However, at the same time, it partially solved the problem associated with the conditional “invisibility” of the building’s wings, making itself noticed on the transport and tourist highway. A similar move was made by the GULAG Museum in Moscow, placing a huge graffiti with a portrait of Varlam Shalamov near the turn to the Museum from Samotechnaya Street. The presence of the function is very important when working alongside the urban space. As practice shows, very often abstract ritualised places of memory fall out of the mental topography, even if they enter the daily route (Konradova and Rileva, 2006). Museumification of the city space The next step is the museumification of the entire urban space. The most popular option at the moment is the usual conservation of heritage objects. It was recently decided that the remains of the Chudov Monastery in the Kremlin would be “museumed”. In general, this is an extremely common approach, especially in cities that have a large number of ancient or medieval archaeological monuments of stone architecture. A popular move today for museumification is framing the space – the installation of visual viewports with explanations. A striking example is a similar work in the small Russian town of Ples, where the legacy of the famous painter Isaak Levitan is actively promoted. Thus, the city itself becomes one big changing landscape. Given the rapid development of virtual and augmented reality technologies, this will be one of the most popular approaches in the near future. The project Portals of History (Saratov) is also saturated by the historical meanings of everyday urban space. The aim of the project was to improve the space of the city embankment and the gateways of the houses overlooking it. At the same time, for the translation of the historical context, fairly simple art objects were used here, for example, fifty bells were placed in one of the arches, which remind us of the Holy Cross Nunnery, once located at this site. It is interesting to note that the choice was based on the house arches – traditional transition spaces, portals to a new dimension, very important for the understanding of the urban space (Dukel’skij, 2010). At the same time, such formats turned out to be quite effective to work with the “difficult heritage”. A striking example is the Russian version of the project The Stumbling Block – The Last Address. The project is designed to perpetuate the memory of victims of political repressions in the Soviet period. On the houses, the last known place whence people departed, tablets are placed: “Each of the memorial signs, no larger than the palm of one hand, mounting up to thousands of “last addresses” of our deceased compatriots, is dedicated only to one person.” A view towards Gdansk from the Solidarnosc Museum. © Ivan Grinko 128 The project of the Aviation Museum (Perm) is interesting from the point of view of the semantification of the everyday space. The Studio Old Future exhibition used concrete fences of the Perm Engine Factory to create a series of murals dedicated to the history of Permian engines and their role in the history of domestic aviation. Fences depict eighteen aircraft and five full-size helicopters, and the “museum” itself, with a length of almost one kilometre, became the largest street art object in Perm. It is important to realise that this initiative is a logical continuation of the street art festival Long History of Perm, that is, it preserves the continuity of local traditions and events. Furthermore, along the walls of the plant are tram routes, and thus the “museum” is integrated with the transport system, as mentioned. Museum and city transport systems These variants deal with special projects like Bus 33 – an anti-excursion from the Museum of the History of Yekaterinburg, or the Museum Tram between Hakodate and Vladivostok “created” by the Arseniev Museum (Vladivostok), although they certainly have a positive impact on the perception of urban space, not only by working with monuments but also filling everyday space with everyday meanings. Much more important is the museumification of standard routes, as it was done in the project Suprematist Tram (2004). In this case, not only it was a homage to the historical fact – the avant-garde design of the Vitebsk trams of the 1920s, created by N. Kogan and A. Tsetlin – but also a unique representation of the museum’s funds – sketches of works by Suprematists which are kept in the State Tretyakov Gallery (Griber, 2017). The State Tretyakov Gallery maintained its work in this line. Its project Intensiv XX not only included a thematic train dedicated to the history of Russian art of the twentieth century but also comprised the installation of information boards over the escalators of the Park Kultury station. It should be noted that the project was aimed at solving one of the specific strategic goals of the State Tretyakov Gallery – attracting visitors to the museum building on the Crimean shaft. In addition to the special design of the train and stands, other tools were used: banners in the metro lobby, stickers in the inter-arching spaces, floor and door stickers, a place for selfies, street installations at the exit of the metro and even a limited series of tickets. Conclusions It should be emphasised that these methods of work can and should be used in any possible combination, and the strategy of their use depends on the mass of variables (museum profile, its location, the architecture of the museum building, climatic conditions, specificity of the urban landscape, etc). However, the basic principles of the museumification of the urban space for the purpose of branding the territory should be respected: ƒ Museumification of urban space begins with the museum itself; ƒ It should be conducted systematically on the main thematic lines associated with the brand; ƒ Museumification of the city should not become an advertisement for the museum: it should be as unobtrusive as possible; ƒ the functionality of the elements (marking the route to the museum, creating comfortable spaces for rest, etc) should not be forgotten; ƒ Involvement and consideration of the opinion of local communities is required; ƒ Complementarity and interpenetration of local images and brands is needed; ƒ A combination of historical heritage and art objects is desirable; ƒ Transmedia: combining, in the same thematic area, different types of content and its presentation in various formats. Despite criticism (Kratke, 2011: 259), the involvement of culture and heritage in the revitalisation of urban spaces and the promotion of the city will evolve, and 129 museums need to be included in this process to become once again an institution of influence. Urban space should become a single narrative, united by nodal points and common themes to form an attractive and sustainable brand of territory today. This narrative should be transmediate and broadcast for different audiences in many ways. Realisation of this without the use of historical and cultural heritage as well as the participation of museums is not yet real. REFERENCES ƒ Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined Communities. London, New York: Verso ƒ Anholt, S. (2007). Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan ƒ Bandarin, F., Van Oers, R. (2012). The historic urban landscape: managing heritage in an urban century. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell ƒ Deepak, C. (2010). Sustainable marketing of cultural heritage. London: Routledge ƒ Deffner, A., Metaxas, T. (2005). Shaping the Vision, the Identity and the Cultural Image of European Places. In: The Materials for 45th Congress of the European Regional Science Association ƒ Dukel’skij, V. (2010). Gorod kak preddverie muzeya. In: Muzei i region. Moscow. 269-292 ƒ Glaeser, E. (2012). Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier. London: Penguin Books ƒ Griber, Y. (2017). Gradostroitel’naya zhivopis’ i Kazimir Malevich. Moscow: Soglasie ƒ Grin’ko I. YUmor v muzejnom prostranstve. Observatoriya kul’tury. 2017. T. 14, No 3. 315–321 ƒ Grinko I., Shevtsova A. “Reanimiruya Andersona”: muzej i karta v formirovanii sovremennyh identichnostej. Kul’turologicheskij zhurnal. 2015. №1 (19) ƒ Jones, I. (2008). Cities and Museums about them. In: Jones, I., Macdonald, R. and McIntyre, D. (Eds.). City museums and city development. Latham: Altamira ƒ Konradova, N., Ryleva, A. (2005). Geroi i zhertvy. Memorialy Velikoj Otechestvennoj. Pamyat’ o vojne 60 let spustya. M., NLO. 222-241 ƒ Kopytoff, I. (2006). Kul’turnaya biografiya veshchej: tovarizaciya kak process. In: Sociologiya veshchej. Moscow: Territoriya budushchego. 134166 ƒ Kratke, S. (2011). The creative capital of cities: interactive knowledge creation and the urbanization economies of innovation. Hoboken: WileyBlackwell ƒ Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge: The MIT Press ƒ Lord, G., Blankenberg, N. (2015). Cities, Museums and Soft Power. Arlington: AAM Press. ƒ Makarychev, A. (2012). Gorodskaya identichnost’ i istoricheskaya pamyat’: politicheskij Berlin v obrazah i narrativah. In: Labirint. Zhurnal social’no-gumanitarnyh issledovanij 2. 4-14 ƒ Nikolaeva, E. (2014). Fraktaly gorodskoj kul’tury. Moscow ƒ Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge ƒ Vizgalov, D. (2011). Brending goroda. Moscow: Fond Institut ehkonomiki goroda ƒ Council of Europe. (2005). Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention) [online] Retrieved from: https://www.coe. int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/199 ƒ UNESCO (2016). The Records of the 38th session of the General Conference. Vol.1. [online] retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0024/002433/243325e.pdf 130 BIOGRAPHY Ivan Grinko is the head of the Department for Museum and Tourism Development in the Moscow Agency for Tourism (MOSGORTUR). He is also the director of the non-profit partnership “Ethnology Project”. He also works as an expert member at the Potanin Charity Foundation. The author has graduated from the Moscow State University. He holds a PhD in cultural anthropology and a Master of Arts degree in cultural management (University of Manchester). He worked at the laboratory for museum design and planning (Russian Institute for Heritage Research), at the AllRussia Museum of Decorative, Applied and Folk Art (Moscow) and the Anthropology Museum (Moscow). He was also an Associate Professor at the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES) and the Russian State University for Humanities. He is the head of the Centre for Museum Design and Planning, a member of the Russian Institute for Heritage Research, an Associate Professor at the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES) and at the Russian State University for Humanities.