[MikeR]

Daniel's answers in English:

Did the Museum ever give Sfera permission to publish EI's diaries? If yes, then in what form was this permission granted and based on what rights?

No. This is how it developed. One of the editors from Sfera wanted to see the diaries, and I took him to Amherst to see them. He spent two days examining them. The people at Amherst were very helpful and hospitable. When he had the idea to make those volumes, he wrote to the Librarian, who was in charge of the Special Collections Library that had the diaries, and asked permission to publish excerpts. The Librarian gave him a letter of permission. I saw it, so I know it was there and was real. Later, when there were belligerent letter from Moscow to Amherst's lawyers demanding to know if Amherst gave permission, the lawyers told the university to say no. They didn't want any expensive lawsuits from Russia. And that was the beginning of years of lawsuits in Moscow that Sfera actually won, though the accusers do not admit it.

If the Museum did give Sfera the permission to publish EI's Diaries, then under what conditions? In other words, did the Museum receive any money for allowing this publication, or did it receive a percentage of sales revenue?

No the museum did not give permission, because it did not own the diaries. And no one received any money or revenue from the sales of the books.

What is your opinion of books by Alice Bailey and Elizabeth C. Prophet?

Helena Roerich, when she was still alive, forbade us to reply to this kind of question, and to never express an opinion about other teachers or teachings. Sorry!

Every organization has By-Laws (what you call "yctab") and also a Mission Statement, registered with the state, defining the goals and primary tasks of the organization.]]
Is it possible to see and read these documents anywhere? Even in English?

Yes, I can find them, and they are not secret, they are public. Because we are tax-exempt, it is considered by the state that we have an obligation to the people, and any American citizen has the right to ask to see our public documents, our financial statements, and more. But no one has ever asked.

Were there any paintings by S.N. Roerich in the first NY Museum, during N.K. Roerich's lifetime? And if yes, where did they go later, at the end of the 1940's, after N.K.'s passing?

That's a good question. Remember, Svetoslav was very young during the early years of the museum. I have seen many photographs of the walls of the old museum, and do not remember ever seeing a painting by Svetoslav Roerich in those photographs. After he moved on to India, of course his paintings accumulated there. Of course there were painting that were privately owned.

Is it correct that within the current building of the Museum no S.N. Roerich paintings have ever been exhibited, with the exception of the N.K. Roerich's portrait done by S.N. Roerich, which did not belong to the Museum, and also the collection later donated by Katherine Campbell, which has always been in the storeroom and never exhibited?

You are forgetting two famous portraits by SNR, the one of his father standing next to Guga Chohan, and the one of his mother seated at a table. Both of those have hung here for many years, since long before I came here, and are still here.

Could you clarify whether it is important to whom specifically the paintings could be sold? For example, if you find out that S.N. Roerich's paintings could be sold to some private collector who will keep them in a closed private collection without any outside access - could the paintings be sold under those conditions, or no? That would be similar to the current situation with N.K.Roerich's portrait by S.N.Roerich, which will now always be in an unknown private collection and people will never have a chance to see it...

Once again, I suggest you read NKR's articles praising private collectors, and his article "Freedom of Things." The attitude you are expressing was not his attitude about the buying and selling of his paintings. He was proud to sell to collectors, and, as I already wrote, he kept careful lists of everything he sold, and the people who bought them, and of course the price.

We would prefer for these paintings to go to an institution that would keep them as a collection and exhibit them publicly. Maybe the best place to obtain them would by M. Ts. R. But they would rather attack me for selling the paintings (though I am not selling them, the Museum is selling them) than have this wonderful collection.

Also - would the collection be sold in its entirety, or piecemeal?

I do not know the answer to that. When the time comes for such considerations, they will be decided.

Is it possible to see the paintings from this collection anywhere on the Internet?

On our web site, www.roerich.org

You wrote about the Katherine Campbell's collection: "she had no space for it, so she gave it to us". It is not clear, was this a formally documented gift, or did Katherine simply give this collection of S.N. Roerich's paintings to the Museum for temporary safekeeping?

No, it was a formally documented gift, though it was Katherine's nature to often give paintings without documents, not temporarily, but permanently.

From your responses I understood that American state laws and those of the Museum Association allow you to "sell assets that are not part of the Museum's Mission". But which of the below do these laws actually prohibit:
- to receive gifts of paintings by other artists?

NOT FORBIDDEN, BUT NOT PART OF OUR MISSION, SO WE DO NOT DO IT

- to buy paintings by other artists?

THE SAME

- to keep paintings by other artists in your storerooms?

THE SAME

- to periodically exhibit paintings by other artists in the halls of the Museum?

THE SAME. ACTUALLY, WE USED TO HAVE A ROOM IN WHICH WE EXHIBITED WORKS BY YOUNG ARTISTS, AS PART OF OUR MISSION TO ENCOURAGE ART AND PROMOTE IT.

- to include paintings by other artists (within reasonable limits) into the permanent exposition of the Museum?

NO, WE WOULD NOT DO THAT

Or in all these situations there is no strict prohibition, and their handling is at the discretion of the Board of Directors of the Museum?

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES HAS NO INVOLVEMENT IN THESE DECISIONS. THE EXECUTIVES OF THE MUSEUM MAKE THEM.

REMEMBER, IT IS NOT A CRIME FOR US TO DO THINGS THAT ARE NOT PART OF OUR MISSION. BUT OUR STATED MISSION IS OUR GUIDANCE FOR OUR BEHAVIOR.

Please excuse me, but to my Russian ear such a combination of ethics and laws of the marketplace sounds ridiculous. I agree that the laws of the marketplace should follow the laws of ethics, but not the other way around: the laws of the marketplace should not dictate what is ethical and honest, and what is unethical and dishonest. And how are the norms of "market ethics" determined? Is it by art auctions? If, for instance, a painting by S.N. Roerich was sold at an auction for a million dollars, would it then be unethical for your Museum to sell a similar painting for, say, a hundred thousand dollars? Or is a hundred thousand still honest but fifty thousand already dishonest? I do not understand… Our mentality must be really different.

I already stated that any organization like ours is bound to be fiscally responsible, to maintain the assets and value of the museum and its holdings as carefully as would any business. It would be a disservice to the museum and its financial stability and future to not use these assets in a way that upholds that responsibility. This museum needs to project itself into a secure future, and that involves financial independence. The trust that helps us could disappear tomorrow, and we need to know that we will not sink and disappear if that happens. Any assets that we have must serve that need.
To me it's simple. I manage this museum and am obliged to secure its financial future to the best that I can. That is called fiscal responsibility. Giving away stuff is not in accordance with that responsibility. Of course, one sometimes must do things that are not profitable, to fulfill the mission. For example, publishing the Agni Yoga books has never been profitable. It has always lost money. But it is something we feel morally obligated to do, to spread the Teaching. We cover that expense by maximizing our income in other ways.

Are you considering the possibility of selling the collection of S.N. Roerich's paintings in its entirety to a single buyer?

YES, OF COURSE. MAYBE YOU SHOULD PERSUADE M. TS. R. TO BUY IT!

Is there an item within the by-laws or the Mission Statement of your Museum that is specifically prohibiting your from using the assets that are not part of the Mission of the Museum in exhibition activities or temporary thematic expositions?

IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THOSE EXHIBIT MAY BE. OUR MISSION IS NICHOLAS ROERICH, AND WE ARE PROUD TO BE LOYAL TO IT. THE RULES ABOUT THESE THINGS ARE UNDER THE CODE OF ETHICS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS. AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT LAWS, THESE ARE RULES OF BEHAVIOR THAT WE ARE BOUND TO.

The Mission Statement that is currently in effect, just like the by-laws, was created by N.K. Roerich. Has it ever been amended or expanded since then?

I DID NOT SAY IT WAS WRITTEN BY NICHOLAS ROERICH. BUT IN ALL THINGS WE FOLLOWED HIS RECOMMENDATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS. HE HAD GREAT EXPERIENCE AS HEAD OF A SCHOOL AND MUSEUM IN PETROGRAD, AND HE KNEW THE PRACTICAL WAYS OF MANAGING SUCH INSTITUTIONS.

Did C. Campbell know that the collection that she had donated was not part of the Museum Mission, and according the the by-laws of your Museum it would have to be sold? Did you discuss this issue with her?

I DID NOT SAY IT HAD TO BE SOLD, I SAID WE DECIDED TO SELL IT BECAUSE IT WAS DETERIORATING IN STORAGE. AND CERTAINLY KEEPING PAINTINGS IN STORAGE IS NOT OF ANY BENEFIT TO ANYONE. IN ST. PETERSURG, AT THE STATE MUSEUM ON INZHENERNAYA UL., THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PAINTINGS BY NK THAT HAVE BEEN IN STORAGE FOR MANY YEARS. IS THAT GOOD, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE OWNED BY AN INSTITUTION? AND YES, KATHERINE STIBBE (SORRY, THAT WAS HER NAME, I DON'T KNOW WHY SO MANY PEOPLE IN RUSSIA INSIST ON CALLING HER CAMPBELL, WHICH WAS THE NAME OF HER PREVIOUS HUSBAND.) AS I SAID TWO DAYS AGO, WAS PRESIDENT OF THIS MUSEUM FOR MANY YEARS, AND WAS CERTAINLY FAMILIAR WITH OUR BY-LAWS.

TO THE PERSON WHO SAID WE JUST THINK DIFFERENTLY, I AGREE THAT WE DO. BUYING AND SELLING ART I NOT A SIN, ANYWHERE. THE GREAT MUSEUMS ARE FULL OF PAINTINGS THAT WERE DONATED BY THEIR OWNERS, AND THOSE OWNERS WERE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT THEIR PAINTINGS. IT IS THE SAME HERE. ALMOST EVERYTHING ON OUR WALLS WAS DONATED BY OWNERS WHO WERE PRIVATE OWNERS WHO BOUGHT THEIR PAINTINGS. IT'S A SYSTEM THAT HAS WORKED THE SAME WAY FOR CENTURIES. AND ROERICH HIMSELF, AND SVETOSLAV ROERICH TOO, WERE PART OF THAT SYSTEM. THEY BOTH ACTIVELY SOLD THEIR PAINTINGS TO PRIVATE OWNERS.