Is Culture responding...?

Público journalists Daniel Dias and Mariana Duarte wrote an article entitled "Is culture in Portugal responding to what's happening in Palestine?" I don't recall the Portuguese media ever questioning the response that culture is giving to contemporary political issues. The two journalists claim that their piece is written on the occasion of Joana Craveiro's new work on Palestine. However, being familiar with the political work of Joana Craveiro/Teatro do Vestido and other artists, I don't recall this type of questioning on other occasions. Therefore, I suspect that this is one of the results of the National Theater D. Maria II (TNDMII) statement on Gaza and the reactions it provoked.

I remember writing in 2017 about the fire in Pedrógão Grande: "A National Tragedy: What Does 'Culture' Have to Do with It?", scrutinising the response (but, mainly, the lack of response) of cultural organisations to the trauma the country was experiencing (and here we are again in August 2025...). I remember writing in March 2022, "War Has Come to Museums: On the 'Exceptionalism' of Culture", in response to colleagues who expressed concern for the fact that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was having an impact on museums and their collections, but without questioning or mentioning either the role of some of these organisations in Kremlin’s propaganda or the resignations of some Russian colleagues (at that time, I advocated for a cultural boycott, here and here). Last month, writing about an exhibition that told the story of a now-dismantled Roma neighborhood in Lithuania, I thought about the Victoria & Albert Museum's "Rapid Response Collecting" and wondered whether museums in Loures, or elsewhere, would undertake some kind of collecting that would allow them to tell the stories of the people who saw their tents demolished by the municipality in the Talude Militar neighborhood. "Am I dreaming?", I wondered...

Returning, therefore, to the article in Público, which questions culture’s response to the situation in Gaza, I consider this kind of questioning to very welcome and much needed, for the cultural sector itself. I reacted very quickly to the TNDMII statement, deeply disturbed by some of the comments, but above all, with the hope that this gesture could spark an urgent reflection on the political role of cultural organisations (also the subject of my book "What Do We Have to Do With This? The Political Role of Cultural Organisations"). I waited for the opinions of cultural professionals that would be shared publicly and could fuel the dialogue. Without counting with comments on social media, I identified (only) two structured critiques.

First, on July 31st, Teatro do Vestido posted on Instagram. It considered the TNDMII statement as aseptic, untimely and belated - recalling the 77 years of occupation of Palestine and the 31 years of the Oslo Accords. It criticised the absence of words like "genocide", "occupation", "apartheid" and "ethnic cleansing." It also considered that the statement did not help foster dialogue or clarifications. And, in a final note, it expressed support for the theatre workers who had lobbied over the past year and nine months and whose efforts had resulted in a written statement from the administration.

While agreeing with some of the weaknesses that Teatro do Vestido points out in the TNDMII statement, two immediate thoughts came to mind when reading this text. First, I saw an attack on a big public cultural institution seeking, for the first time, to take a stand on a current political issue (contrary to what the text mentions, it was a stand taken by the team, not the administration; and this shouldn’t be confused with the inspiring interventions by Tiago Rodrigues on a number of issues, when he was the artistic director of TNDMII). Therefore, I found the criticism fierce, mainly because I am not aware of the Teatro do Vestido ever demanding that public cultural institutions break their (continued) silence on Gaza and other issues relevant to society. In other words, as colleagues, are we leaving alone the institutions that remain silent and attack the one that speaks out? Secondly - especially with the reference to the many decades of occupation, tragedy and struggle -, I saw a need to assert moral superiority, which a colleague put in other words in a Facebook comment: "We were already here, a long time ago." It's true. So what? TNDMII's statement, contrary to what is mentioned in the text, sparked dialogue and clarification - unfortunately, short-lived, so it's up to us to continue.

Days later, on August 2nd, our colleague and artist Maria Gil wrote an opinion piece in Público entitled "The Moral Impulse, Gaza, and the D. Maria II National Theatre". This piece struck me as less thoughtful and, frankly, less opinionated. Maria Gil refers, without comment, to the criticisms of "gaslighting, artwashing, and virtue signaling," that is, that TNDMII wanted to "improve its image, claiming for itself the position of the first Portuguese theatre to take a stand." (I don't understand whether the author agrees with these criticisms; however, she clarifies that the first theatre to take a stand on Gaza was LU.CA - Luis de Camões Theatre, with a post on World Children's Day. I also don't recall the TNDMII attempting to assert itself as the first to take a stand.) Maria Gil also writes that criticism of the absence of the word "genocide" in the statement prompted Pedro Penim, TNDMII artistic director, to publicly clarify that it was not out of fear, but "out of prudence and respect that arise from institutional responsibility." (It's important to note that Pedro Penim did not publicly clarify anything, especially since the statement was not authored solely by him, but by the theater team. In fact, Pedro Penim responded to a criticism made on his Facebook page.) Finally, Maria Gil mentions in her text that "there are those who compare TNDMII with other institutions that did not hesitate to take a strong and assertive stance, even without statements" (however, she doesn't mention which ones, and I can't think of another public cultural entity in Portugal that has taken a strong stance on this).

Before I continue, I'd like to say that I appreciate and value all positions taken by cultural institutions on current political issues - when I feel they are honest and not opportunistic. Even when they're not made in the terms I'd like, they still contribute to the reflection we must undertake as a sector and to our growth, development and accountability. I don't think it's desirable to establish a "hierarchy" of their importance, and in this sense, it doesn't seem relevant to me to say who's been at it the longest or who was the first to take a stand. That said, I think we should be aware of the differences between them, as they each contribute, in their own way, to the relevance of Culture in society.

When I shared my article in Público about the TNDMII statement, a colleague reminded me of the publication by LU.CA - Luís de Camões Theatre on International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression. I had already seen it and shared it, moved by the gesture and the statement that "We are simply a theatre which thinks for and with children. Which, like them, listens to the world and is outraged by injustice. If only a theatre could serve as a shelter." The publication didn't mention genocide, ethnic cleansing or apartheid, but it did mention violence, injustice, and, among other territories, the Gaza Strip. What caught my attention, however, was the colors chosen for the image—the colors of the Palestinian flag. It wasn't the first time that LU.CA had taken a stand, perhaps more discreetly, more directed at attentive, knowledgeable people. I had already written about the (different) way in which LU.CA and TBA - Teatro do Bairro Alto had taken a stand very early on against the attacks by a far-right group on authors of children's books.

These posts by LU.CA are different (not more or less important, but different) from the stance of the team of a national theatre. Also from a symbolic perspective. In a sector where cultural institutions overseen by the state or municipalities do not assume a political role and confuse silence with neutrality, the TNDMII statement sets a precedent. I imagine it was not easy for the team to reach a consensus. I believe the choice of words was equally difficult. But there was a statement, and it also mentions that the theatre feels "compelled to transform this stance into a meaningful gesture" and that "in dialogue with artists, thinkers, and civil society organisations, it will seek to promote a critical reflection on this reality in Palestine and on the role of the arts in the face of injustice and violence." I don't recall another public cultural institution taking a stance like this (also on other issues – wildfires, housing crisis, racism, xenophobia, femicides, etc.) and this is a good precedent, something the sector can and should build on.

Furthemore, this is not the first time that TNDMII has addressed the issue of Palestine. Cultural organisations don't just take a stand through statements. In 2021, in partnership with other organisations, it organised the conference "Partial Justice" - The Law and the Question of Palestine, with Noura Erakat; in 2024, as part of the programme "Atos" of the National Odyssey, UMCOLETIVO presented "Peace is Peace", a co-production of the TNDMII with other organisations; again in 2024, as part of the Alkantara festival, it presented "Querida Laila" by Basel Zaraa.

In the context of the catastrophe unfolding in Gaza, we must also mention another unusual event in our midst and in our country: the stance of a group of EGEAC workers which was formed last year in order to protest the concession of space at the São Jorge Cinema to the Israeli Embassy for the celebration of the creation of the State of Israel. It's as rare as a statement from the staff of a national theatre to see a group form spontaneously (this was neither a workers' committee nor a union, more formal structures of worker representation) in order to express their disagreement or discomfort with a political decision by their governing body.

I believe these gestures are not rare only in Portugal. The idea of a supposed neutrality or silence to avoid problems or the assumption that cultural entities overseen by the State or municipalities have nothing to do with current political events, conditions not only our actions but also our thinking about the political role of culture. I few instances that got me thinking quickly come to mind:

• the internal and external protest that led to the cancellation of a lease at the American Museum of Natural History by the Brazilian-American Chamber of Commerce, which was to host a gala where the guest of honor would be Jair Bosonaro (2019).
• the Museum of the Republic in Rio de Janeiro becoming a COVID-19 vaccination centre (2021).
• the Japanese American National Museum's refusal to comply with Donald Trump's executive order requiring entities receiving federal funding to abandon their DEI - Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies (2025).

Active citizenship, which many of us claim to desire and value, cannot be built with silent cultural institutions. Cultural institutions have a political (non-partisan) role, and this requires maturity - on behalf of politicians/governing bodies/cultural professionals/citizens - to create a space for freedom, autonomy, respect, empathy and critical thinking to enable politics of quality. I wouldn’t like this reflection to end here. The letter sent by the White House to the Smithsonian Institution informing them of its decision to “review” the content of nineteen museums to ensure the narrative is “patriotic” is yet another warning sign for cultural institutions around the world.