PODCAST: The museum is ours. A conversation with Joanna Mytkowska

Igor Stokfiszewski: You are the director of the Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw. How does your work look on a daily basis? Do you start it in your office?

Joanna Mytkowska: No, when I am at work, I like to be in different places; I am constantly on the move. I do not use the word ‘office’ at all, because as someone who works alongside the team daily, you can find me in all parts of the building depending on the task, and I usually use my ‘office’ to hold meetings from time to time. I have heard that my way of working has even caused controversy – some artists have resented me for meeting them in the museum instead of the office. However, in the office, there are books, photographs related to the institution’s history, and other resources, and I sometimes work from there.

I.S.: What else is there in your office?

J.M.: For a long time, there was a painting by Jadwiga Sawicka that I received from her a long time ago. It is entitled Memento, and the two zeros visible on it are combined in such a way as to emphasise emptiness and nothingness symbolically. Its message was to remind me that not everything will happen at once. The critical thing is to perform the subsequent task as well as I can and in the correct order.

I.S.: Do you have any other artwork there?

 J.M.: Yes, there is Marek Raczkowski’s cartoon drawing from 2007 that he made following the second competition for designing the new museum building, which Christian Kerez won. As we remember, the jury’s decision caused a huge controversy. In response to this, Raczkowski drew a pair of people: a man in a singlet and a woman with a painting depicting a deer hanging on the wall behind them. The two are watching TV and commenting on the results of the competition, saying that they had expected something more avant-garde, such as a room within a room.

 Olga Wysocka: You were appointed director of the Museum of Modern Art by Minister Michał Kazimierz Ujazdowski in 2007. What did you think then, and how did it come about?

J.M.: I worked at the Centre Pompidou when the Minister came to Paris to honour someone with a badge. We met over breakfast at the hotel he was staying in. It was quite an awkward situation because we had never met before.

O.W.: Nevertheless, the meeting had a positive effect.

J.M.: Yes, although the architectural competition I mentioned caused a massive split among the visual arts circle, art historians and museum professionals. I did not live in Poland then, so I was not partial. Of course, I knew what was happening, but I observed the situation from a distance. My colleagues would tell me that we had to vote for this or that, but when you are not directly in the midst of things, you do not grasp the emotions involved. The situation was awkward, but the Minister told me everything was going well. He also acknowledged my professional achievements, such as my work at the Centre Pompidou, although he pointed out that I should not write for the Krytyka Polityczna magazine. He reasoned that the political divide was distinct, while I had no experience in cultural diplomacy.

O.W.: How did you react to this condition?

J.M.: I thought this was when I needed to put my whole life on the line. I went for a walk in the park; I needed a moment to think. I was featured in Krytyka Polityczna maybe twice in my life when I gave interviews. I have my views and opinions, and I was not going to give them up. However, on second thought, I concluded that it would not be a compromise if I accepted the offer. I was appointed director in June, and in October, the government ceased to exist, and this issue no longer mattered. It was interesting, however, to realise how significant Krytyka Polityczna was at the time if the Minister had made it a condition precedent for my appointment.

O.W.: Let us take another step back. How did the meeting with the minister in Paris come about?

 J.M.: I do not remember it clearly, but I must have received an invitation. I think the main context of the event was the fierce dispute that was going on in the media. If it had not been for Tadeusz Zielniewicz, my predecessor, wo had resigned in the atmosphere of conflict [around the Christian Kerez design – ed. note], my candidature probably would not have gone through.

O.W.: All right, but how did it happen that the Minister approached you, of all people, with this proposal?

J.M.: I did not know any politicians personally; besides, I was not notably recognised. Someone must have hinted to the Minister that I was the right candidate, as I was not actively involved in the conflict. I assume Anda Rottenberg was the first choice, but she and the museum’s programme board resigned in protest against Christian Kerez’s design.

 O.W.: Did you have the opportunity to talk to her about all this?

J.M.: Yes, although Anda remembers it all a bit differently. I believe that it should have been implemented since Kerez’s design won and was accepted by the then-Mayor of Warsaw, Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz. However, I still have no idea who suggested me as the director to the Minister.

O.W.: Let us come back to you. You are young, living in Paris. You get an offer to take over and lead an institution in a rather unglamorous situation. You take a walk in this park. What happens? Why did you decide to accept the position?

J.M.: It was my dream come true; there is no doubt about it. I worked at the Centre Pompidou for two years, and it was a perfect time. I had lived in Paris for about a year and a half by then. Unfortunately, I was starting to get a bit bored because, in my previous life in Warsaw, I worked intensively; I felt I was growing, and a lot was changing. On the other hand, Centre Pompidou has a solid structure with defined tasks; it is difficult to break away from the routine. The entire museum staff would meet and talk about their projects regularly. At the time, I thought we were wasting a lot of time on these discussions, but from today’s perspective, I know this is good practice. I was a guest curator there, so I was assigned some tasks, but compared to how I functioned in Warsaw, I felt like I was on a permanent vacation. Centre Pompidou had a travel budget so that we could plan research trips. I went to Beirut and Damascus. I got an exciting lesson, but I still missed the more intensive work mode I had been used to.

O.W.: So you decided to jump in at the deep end?

J.M.: I did not see it that way, to be honest. After all, I was returning to my city, where everything was familiar. I had the impression that the Polish art scene deserved such an institution. Besides that, I was living in a certain ignorance; for example, I had no idea about the investment processes in this type of institution. It was not a particularly difficult decision. I have never regretted it. Also, the privilege of building something from scratch does not come your way often.

I.S.: What has been the most difficult for you?

J.M.: As far as I remember, it took nine months to negotiate the contract with the architect. It turned out that we did not have the title to the plot of land where we planned to build the museum, and there were many similar surprises along the way. Initially, I was very enthusiastic and believed in the need to make an institution, so I tried to drive the project forward. Of course, I learned a few things along the way, including how to read between the lines. This is an essential skill, although I must say a lot has changed since then. We are talking about a time when EU projects were starting.

I.S.: Are there any art institution directors you respect and admire?

J.M.: I do not know if I have any role models of this kind. Of course, the directors who were recognised in the public sphere were primarily men. In Poland, the most famous femal art museum head is Anda Rottenberg. My only experience of this came from the Centre Pompidou. Alfred Pacquement, the director at the time, was an extremely prudent diplomat. He managed the institution very calmly. When I told him I had decided to take up a new job, he warned me that politicians promise a lot, but their words rarely have substance. He may not have been a role model, but I have particularly warm memories of how he handled the institution with all his caution. In contrast, the current role models in our part of Europe for female directors – strong women who go against everything – result from generational differences. I started my career in more favourable circumstances; sacrifices of this kind were unnecessary. Besides, I am convinced that collective action can do more good than the struggles of individual female directors who face problems alone.

O.W.: What new skills have you acquired?

J.M.: I indeed lost the illusions I had starting this journey. At the time, I lived in a firm conviction of the uniqueness of the Warsaw Museum of Modern Art project. Perhaps such an impression is necessary to survive the first months or years. Moreover, having the worst, not the best, scenarios in your head is probably better.

I.S.: You mentioned that you thought of the museum team as a collective body from the beginning. Today, the Museum headcount is over one hundred people. Do you know all your employees?

J.M.: We started with only seven employees, and five still work with me. Next, we had fifteen people working, and from then on, we began to expand rapidly. I only get to know someone after a few months because the museum’s structure is based on department-based work. Of course, I do not know everyone equally well. The transition from such a small organisation to a relatively large one has not been smooth, although we have managed to avoid major crises. On the other hand, we are working on creating a specific work culture on the initiative of our deputy directors, i.e. Szymon Żydek and Małgosia Ludwisiak. Self-reflection on our institution has always been critical to us, and now it is even more evident. We often discuss how we work, outline various projects, and establish relationships.

I.S.: Have the criteria you used for recruiting colleagues and collaborators changed significantly in the nearly seventeen years since you started running the institution?

J.M.: Of course. It is important to remember that I had no experience running a larger institution at the time. When I assumed the position, there was no question that the museum should have its programme we were simply to get the building built. Thanks to the team’s initiative, we turned a design office into a thriving institution despite not having an ample space of our own. Going back to your question, the most important thing for me was subject-matter competence, the ability to work with artists and produce projects, and curatorship skills. It may sound anachronistic now, but it is essential to remember that I am talking about a time before Facebook and before the museum’s marketing departments came into being. Marcel Andino Velez started working with us very early on; he was a crucial figure and shaped how the museum was perceived.

 I.S.: As the institution grew, more needs emerged….

J.M.: We have reached a point where we have, I think, a professional way of recruiting employees. We have an HR department. For more complex recruitments, we also work with other companies.

O.W.: Amazingly, you have gone from a team of seven to a hundred employees, and there will probably be even more of you. How has the issue of employee affairs changed over the years?

J.M.: The change is colossal. In the beginning, we were an institution focused on our mission and an industry understanding of our role; that is, we wanted to exhibit the best art in the world and present the best artists. Today, it is the audience that is important to us. I derived my ideas about the institution’s functioning from my experience working in the non-governmental sector, particularly at the Foksal Gallery Foundation. Organisations of this kind were established mainly to pursue the passions of their creators. There are, after all, initiatives that have no structure, and their founders base all their activities on good intentions. Unfortunately, this type of work plan, even the most creative, is unlikely to work long term. We were not spared from problems either; the moment that a trade union was established at the museum was a valuable lesson for me, although it was a bit of a surprise because I did not see the need for it. By the way, unions have to form on their own, the director does not set them up. They are formed when there is a conflict – it was our case too…

O.W.: What was the conflict about?

J.M.: I noticed that the chief accountant did not come to the museum opening event. I would now know that this was a reason to worry. There was a deepening division within the team. Worldview issues became the igniter. At one point, Marcel Andino Velez decided that we would drink tap water, while the team thought we should provide bottled water. It was an absurd trifle, but it caused a rift to emerge. It was then that the first trade unions appeared. For a while, we had two union organisations, and now we have one union again, but ten years have passed. Unions are a natural part of the museum’s activities, and after many years, we have managed to work through the divisions.

I.S.: In the context of the changes you mention, do you advocate finding new forms of employee participation? Or do you think that a relatively open arrangement, but with some hierarchy, works best?

J.M.: In the early years of the museum, I did not have the necessary knowledge; I was often wrong. I think that good working relationships are key. I myself am not attached to a hierarchy. I like my job because it allows me to accomplish tasks; I do not think of it in terms of my position. For a long time, I did not consider the fact that I was perceived as someone with authority. It took a long time for me to learn about myself and reach the correct conclusions. The community of employees is crucial for me, but it requires structure. We carried out a two-year-long process during which we learned about one another’s boundaries and identified the values we endorse. Today, we carry out regular evaluations – this is never-ending work.

O.W.: Could you elaborate on the theme of self-discovery? I understand it because you have been trying to come to terms with what your position entails for a long time. When you assume it, you must face the fact that you will be perceived as an authority.

J.M.: Authority comes from power. However, it is not power that has immediate causality; it simply enables me to oversee various processes. I am surprised to learn about certain myths about myself; besides, the director is seen as someone with superhuman causality. I try to dispel these myths.

O.W.: I am asking about your insights because they might be helpful for people who would like to head similar institutions. Your awareness of this function looks pretty profound. Could you tell us more about how you measure up to such a responsibility?

J.M.: Being a director is a bittersweet experience. You must know that you will be judged constantly; there will be various accusations, some right and some wrong. I reflect on these opinions when they cause me some pain. Some of this criticism is, of course, constructive; some is even inspiring. One has to accept the fact that people have the right to judge. The most important thing is to live in harmony with yourself because if you start working to be admired or not to face criticism, sooner or later, you will face an internal conflict that is difficult to overcome.

I.S.: Which decision was the most difficult for you?

J.M.: Of course, all decisions to part with someone are difficult. However, the most difficult one was when the city wrongly decided to give up on Christian Kerez. He was mistreated.

O.W.: Who do you advise when making decisions?

J.M.: Today, after many years, no one. In the past, I used to call Michał Borowski, an authority in my eyes on matters related to architecture, but he passed on. There comes a point when I have to decide on my own, although sometimes it is good to talk to someone, as it makes things easier. Sometimes I need to consult certain issues with experts. This way, I collect the information I need, and once I have enough insights, I make a decision.

I.S.: You have said that the most critical change in the museum is a change of focus. The audience is now at the core of your philosophy, not so much as the art. Do you know the statistics on how many people visit the museum annually?

J.M.: Of course, this is one of our most important data. Our turn towards the public began when the Museum was absent in our temporary venue, the former Emilia furniture pavilion. Back then, we had 200,000 people visit us (we did not sell tickets at the time). The institution was small; we had no educational programme or tools to support events. We also did not employ exhibition assistants at the time.

I.S.: When did you become a ‘serious’ institution?

J.M.: When we moved to the Vistula River pavilion, we started ticketing our exhibitions and events. Our situation changed slightly at the time. Firstly, the location of the Emilia building was more attractive to the public. Secondly, the pavilion on the Vistula was much smaller. By the time of the pandemic, we had about 150,000 visitors a year. Educational programmes emerged, which had a turnout of approximately 20,000 visitors. We also relied on contact with schools. Unfortunately, the pandemic changed everything.

I.S.: Does the museum know its audience?

 J.M.: We have a regular audience, an extremely loyal one, who come to every one of our exhibitions and attend public events. Often, these are professionals in the visual arts or culture. However, this audience is not only faithful but also critical. As soon as we do something that does not fit the image of the MSN, for example, hold an exhibition by Aleksandra Waliszewska, this part of the audience immediately communicates this to us. I think it is excellent! But the most exciting thing happens when we plan an exhibition from the borderline of national art, in this case, new art – then there are a lot of dissatisfied voices. It is like theatre. I like moments like this because we renegotiate the broadening of the MSN’s identity.

I.S.: Who, apart from the critically equipped regulars, visits you?

J.M.: People interested in contemporary culture. Tourists are also an important group for us. In addition, we are visited by many people from Ukraine and Belarus. Our programme interests migrants because even before the war broke out, we were thinking about important issues for this community. After it broke out, we could function better because of this. Another group consists of architects, designers, and urban activists. This section of the regulars is linked to the Warsaw under construction project. We quickly realised that if you want an audience, you have to bet on something that becomes popular; that is how the above project came about. People liked the museum for the fact that there were valuable things there. Then we organised an exhibition by Sebastian Cichocki, who set out to try to make use of art. Thanks to the rich programme, the public has been visiting us regularly, judging us on our previous projects.

O.W.: Let me rephrase my previous question: who would you like to see in a museum but who rarely or never comes there?

J.M.: Obviously, there are many people I would like to see in our museum. However, it all comes down to the launch of the museum’s new premises. For us, having such a space is a novelty. Until now, the museum has only been focused on one project at a time. Now, for the first time, we can plan a few exhibitions simultaneously. As such, we must focus on one message at a time and give even more freedom to those carrying out these individual projects. What I am getting at is that the building can accommodate 800,000 visitors annually. Hence, the new offering has to be conceived in such a way as to go beyond the regular audience and encourage people who are not our clients to visit our space. Although the statement that a museum is an institution whose task is to produce exhibitions is an old one, I will quote it because we want to produce knowledge and conduct research since this is an integral part of our mission. On the other hand, the art exhibited in a museum must be accessible to a broad audience. We face the challenge of creating attractive exhibitions that remain understandable to as many people as possible. This is what we are working on. To summarise, we are missing those who have never visited a museum.

I.S.: Regarding your audience’s expectations, have you ever considered shaping them from a certain angle, such as values? To convince them of something? Or do you care primarily about showing good art?

J.M.: My artistic choices have little influence on the museum’s programme. The programme emerges primarily during discussions in which the curatorial programmers, the curators of public programmes, and the departments of publishing, communication and education, among others, have their say. Inviting external curators with whom we can discuss certain issues is important. The group meets regularly at programming meetings and decides on our offering. MSN is an institution of public trust, so as well as having art there, artists and curators are also important. Although they have a lot of freedom in their work, the museum tries to endorse a particular set of prevailing values. On the other hand, I do not see the museum as a propaganda tool where the audience would be shown the ‘right direction’. Unfortunately, we also must consider that reactions vary, even though we try to convey a clear message. The most important thing is to assume that everyone can take a piece from an exhibition for themselves and leave with it.

I.S.: At the beginning of the interview, you talked about diplomacy, which is the ability to navigate the intersection of different areas of art, politics, and administration. You are one of the few directors of progressive institutions that worked with the Ministry of Culture and survived the rule of Piotr Gliński. The Ministry of Culture and the City of Warsaw subsidised the museum. The decision was made to give up cooperation with the Ministry. The art community perceived this as a clear signal, even a political gesture. It stemmed from a feeling of threat that the Ministry, under Piotr Gliński, would want to do what it did to several other institutions, i.e. install, euphemistically speaking, conservative or, to put it bluntly, right-wing or radically right-wing directors? How do you think about these nearly seventeen years of operating on the verge of politics? Which situation was the most nerve-wracking for you regarding the Ministry’s attempts to interfere with the Museum’s activities?

J.M.: There have been quite a few situations like this. It was something that seemed like an earthquake at the beginning, but now it seems to be the norm. I have been privileged to work in this position for many years, so I have learned how to deal with these situations. In 2007, the MSN was on the list of institutions to be closed, which was perceived as an overspending by the previous team, Law and Justice. Minister Zdrojewski wanted to close us down, like many other institutions he saw as projects that he associated with wasteful spending. We were on the shortlist.

I.S.: You were just getting started with MSN at the time.

J.M.: Yes, I arrived from Paris and was told they are already closing us down. At first, I did not have a plan, to be honest, but I made a list of people I wanted to call. During those calls, I calmed down a bit, and someone shared advice in one out of twenty calls. The following difficult situation arose from the lack of plots of land on Plac Defilad when it turned out that the land did not belong to the city. All in all, it was not clear who was their owner. At a certain point, together with the Deputy Director for Investments, Mikołaj Budzik, we realised that if we did not do something about these plots ourselves, things would take the wrong turn, and the project would fail.

I.S.: You mention situations from the early days of the museum. What were your activities like during the culture war?

J.M.: Those eight years of culture wars were agony. Everyone who worked in Ministery-run institutions had to apply a kind of self-censorship. You could say what you wanted, but you had to do it to not cause a scandal. Knowing these techniques is not something to be proud of; however, the most important thing is that we managed to survive the Law and Justice governments. I think that, unlike my colleagues, my disillusionment helped me. I did not believe anything good could happen to me. Minister Gliński, by the way, openly said that the Museum of Modern Art does not fit into the concept of national culture. Trying to escape under the Ministry’s influence was a natural reaction to these words. At one cultural event, I met a well-known psychologist who explained to me this pattern of behaviour – how people like Minister Gliński function. She noted that this mechanism is based on personal resentment, so one should avoid entering into any dispute with them.

I.S. In that case, who managed to free MSN from the Ministry?

J.M.: The challenge was taken up by the Mayor of the city, Deputy Mayor, and the Culture Bureau. The then-director of the department we were assigned thought we were a decent, well-functioning institution. Warsaw eventually decided to take on the museum’s management.

I.S.: Has the institution’s prestige not suffered with this change?

J.M.: I do not believe in ranks or hierarchies; they are just tools. It is important to note that the MSN is a significant expense for the city.

O.W.: The institution you have run for many years is an exciting material for observation and research. I hope there will be more than one study on the subject and more than one interview with you and your team. Finally, please tell us what the future holds for such institutions. What direction have you taken?

J.M.: I will surprise you: I do not have a ready answer. I do not know what will happen, but we are naturally betting on greater accessibility. MSN started out as a space for artistic communities; now, the public is on the horizon. In my work, I am guided by my reflections on how art works. We are at a point where the next step will be handing over the programming process to the public. It is not about leaving the toys, because it does work that way, but about listening even more carefully and understanding the visitors. Some elements should be dependent on the audience. The idea would be to turn the model from one in which a curator is responsible for the programme and everyone else is silent to one in which active collaboration between the institution and the audience is entrusted. I would like the public to be able to shape the exhibition programme. This is why we want to promote the museum with slogans like “The museum is ours” and “There is room for everyone at the museum”.

O.W.: All this sounds very interesting, Joanna. One last question: do you work around the clock?

J.M.: Absolutely! I am a mother, have a daughter, and must be home by 6 p.m. at the latest. When I come home, my work stops.

O.W., I.S.: Thank you for your time.

J.M.: Thank you for the invitation and your trust and interest.

The conversation was recorded and transcribed during the creation of the podcasts Being  a Director in November 2023.