All too often, the promotion
of intellectual access by some in the cultural sector is discarded as ‘dumbing
down’. Recently, I read the following in Rob Riemen’s “The eternal return of
fascism”:
“In the culture of this society [the mass-society; our contemporary society] there is an ongoing trend towards the lesser, the lowest level, because this is where one finds most things people can share. This is exactly why university education indicators are levelled down, so that ‘everyone’ can study and obtain a degree. And the same will apply to the arts, because they will have to be accessible to all, not only in what concerns tuition fees, but also at the level of comprehension. After all, the fiercest indignation is directed towards what is difficult. Because what is not understood immediately by everyone is difficult, that is ‘elitist’ and therefore undemocratic.” (my translation from Greek)
It is because of this passage - a defence of intellectual values, humanism, critical thinking, individual freedom and responsibility, love of life – that I am writing about what intellectual access means to me.
First of all, I do not
believe that everything must be understood by everyone and I don’t defend levelling
down. Knowledge is precisely a construction which can take us higher and
higher, it can elevate us, but one doesn’t move directly from point A to point
Z (we’ll assume a point Z exists for the sake of the argument). Actually, some
people might just stay half way, either because, intellectually, they cannot go
further or because they find no further interest in what is proposed to them. On
some subjects, I stay half way. I don’t defend, though, that everything I don’t
understand or personally appreciate should not actually exist or be supported,
because, even if I don’t directly take part in it, I understand its importance
in the construction. And this, I believe, is the whole point.
I believe it is
perfectly legitimate for, let’s say, a museum to organize an exhibition with an
expert audience in mind. Experts are one of many museum audiences. The problem
is I have never seen a museum assuming that one of its exhibitions is mainly addressed
to experts. On the contrary, too many museum exhibitions are made by and for
experts and are then officially presented as addressed ‘to all’. Then, when people
do not visit, we try to understand what is wrong with them – the people -, what
their problem is.
In a debate this year,
some colleagues from the visual arts field questioned why one of Lisbon’s biggest
cultural institutions doesn’t have more visitors, although it presents an excellent
programme of exhibitions. They attributed it to people’s low cultural level, lack
of interest and love of football… My counterargument was that perhaps we should
first try to understand what kind of people the institution aims to attract,
because, considering the content of its exhibitions and the way they are communicated,
I believed it might be interested mainly in an expert or initiated audience and,
thus, very happy with what it gets in return. And if this is truly the case,
then that’s fine.
My first point is that
working for an expert or initiated audience is perfectly fine (as long as this
position is assumed). My second point is that not everyone aims to do that or
is entitled to limit it to that, namely public cultural institutions.
Cultural institutions
have a role in the construction of knowledge and the promotion of intellectual
values; and public cultural institutions have a responsibility towards all
citizens. Thus, they cannot forget that not all of us have reached point Z and
that there are always people at A, B, C – people of all ages and not just
children and teenagers. Most visitors to museum exhibitions are not experts,
neither will they become experts by visiting an exhibition. Providing
intellectual access in this case is creating contents that will allow
non-experts to get an introduction, to become aware of and interested in issues
that are new to them or to acquire more knowledge or a different interpretation
on things they thought they already knew. Communicating with someone who does
not share our knowledge and language may be an ever bigger challenge.
 |
| Image taken from the website of Roadside Theatre |
Likewise, we need
theatres or orchestras to also consider the needs and interests of those
citizens at A, B, C within their programme. But this is not achieved by dumbing
down, but rather with respect and without patronizing audiences; this is done
by experts with a clear view of who the people are they are addressing and what
is the reason they are addressing them. Many times, this may be done in collaboration
with other museums, orchestras and theatres, creating necessary pathways for
those wishing to keep on walking through cultural encounters. I don’t wish
those experts to treat me as if I was stupid. I wish them to treat me as an
intelligent, interested and curious person who wishes to know more.
So, my reason for
defending intellectual access in the cultural sector is that cultural organisations
are about people and life. If we wish to help construct a better world - a
world that recognizes and defends absolute intellectual values and embraces truth,
beauty and justice in life -, help elevate the human being, then cultural
institutions are one of the places where this can occur. For that to happen, they
have to find ways to involve and engage people - more people, all people who
are open and interested. It is a process, one that doesn’t take us directly
from A to Z. It involves building on what is known to reach towards the
unknown, the uncomfortable and the experimental. And it can and must help
instigate appreciation and support for culture, even if not all people understand
everything, but because they believe in the ultimate cause.
One needs to understand,
though, what the ultimate cause is and what the benefits are for everyone. This
is what intellectual access means to me and dumbing down is definitely not part
of the equation.
More
on this blog
No comments:
Post a Comment