Fernando Birri (Photo taken from www.extracine.com) |
I am involved in a european project
called CETAID – Community Exhibitions as Tools for Adult Individual
Development. It brings together partners from four european countries: Hungary,
Great Britain, Italy and Portugal. Last month the partners met for the first
time in Manchester and London. In three days of intense meetings and exchange
of experiences and ideas it once again became obvious how big the distance
between actual practices and concerns in Great Britain and the rest of the
countries is. Quite often in meetings like these I see expressions of
frustration or despair on people´s faces, accompanied some times by comments of
self-mockery or self-pity. For our British colleagues, our realities were
theirs 10 or 20 years ago (in some cases, maybe even more...). What we are
desperately still aiming to achieve, they did it long ago. They´ve already
evaluated it, criticised it, took it further forward.
Question nr. 1: What is the point of
bringing together realities which are so far apart? What is the point of
putting around the same table institutions and professionals with different
visions, different priorities or different means?
In a second meeting with the Polish colleague I mentioned in a previous post,
we had a long discussion on issues that seem to be common in our countries: a
rather short vision in the cultural sector (or total lack of it in certain
cases), lack of trained professionals (especially in what concerns management),
lack of space to discuss new ideas and approaches, when most people feel the
need to launch fireworks just because things happen, without considering how
they should have happened and how their future can and should be planned (it´s
very much worth reading Ines Fialho Brandão´s opinion text on the announcement
of the creation of a new municipal museum in the portuguese town of Peniche; and, once again, it was incredible to see, in the Facebook discussion that
followed, how willing – maybe needy too? – people are to launch fireworks just
because a municipality had this ‘noble’ idea).
Question nr.2: Do culture
professionals who think differently have a place or any impact at all in a
sector that seems to be still quite conservative, quite amateur, determined to
avoid evaluation, and rather more concerned with guarantees of
personal/professional wellbeing rather than serving the purposes of the
cultural institutions they work for?
I´ve given a lot of thought to both questions. And I think they are
related too.
Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano tells the story of a lecture he and his
friend Fernando Birri, the argentinian film director, once gave in a university.
Apparently, when asked by a student “What´s utopia for?”, Birri answered:
“Utopia is in the horizon... I know very well that I will never reach it... But
that´s what utopia is for: to keep walking.”
Realities that are far different, far better or far away from our own
are that kind of utopia that makes us keep walking. They inspire us, they make
us want to be better, they help us dream. It´s true that when I was younger I
got frustrated for not reaching them, or for not reaching them fast enough.
What I appreciate now when I encounter them is the comfort of knowing they are
there, they exist, someone else did make them happen, we can get there too.
There are occasions when what was a utopia the day before becomes a
reality the day after. In order to come true, these ‘utopias’ do need people
who think differently, who have a vision, who are persistant, hard working and
also good at what they´re doing. It might take ages before some actual change
happens, but these people can and do have an impact. They can´t do it alone though,
especially when they are young, little known in their field, not in a position
to take or influence decisions. Thus, they need to identify their peers (and by
‘peers’ I don´t mean people who necessarily think the same, I mean people who
are open-minded, open to dialogue, who want to do better and more); they need
to create their own space, their own platforms of expression and debate, so
that their voice can be heard (and nowadays “liked” and widely “shared”); they
need to support each other in order to avoid exclusion and isolation; thus, the
“culture fiction" lobby is born.
No comments:
Post a Comment