 |
| Photo: Adriano Vizoni/Folhapress (taken from Folha de S. Paulo) |
"Black
Presence" is an action promoted in São Paulo (Brazil) by black artists,
writers and activists who visit exhibition openings in art galleries in group.
They arrive one by one, they become numerous and attract the uncomfortable
stares of other visitors. Because the presence of blacks (as artists and
public) is not usual in these contexts. Not everyone agrees with these actions
(as can be seen in the comments in the Folha de S. Paulo),
but to me, this act of claiming by citizens caught my attention.
And it
reminded me of another. At a conference last year, I heard Sylvain Denoncin, of
the French company EO Guidage, tell the story of the Louvre - Lens. The museum
was designed by Japanese architecture studio SANAA. The inhabitants of the city
threatened to take the project to court if the new museum was not accessible.
At that point, EO Guidage was called to intervene and remedy something that
should have been thought from the first moment. In an exchange of views with a
colleague on Facebook, we shared the same concern: how many generations for the
citizens of this country to become more demanding in relation to access to the
cultural offer of public cultural institutions?
These are
two cases which raise once again the question of what is meant by "access
to culture"; what culture professionals mean when they say "our doors
are open" or "we are here for everyone"; the difference between
the concepts of "democratization of culture" and "democratic
culture".
John
Holden has been quoted more than once on this blog, specifically his
identification of the guardians of culture in the essay "Culture and
Class" - the "cultural snobs" and the neo-mandarins (see
references at the end of the text).
First
point: we are still suffering from the mentality of the "cultural
snob", which considers the cultural offer - certain cultural offer – to be
only for the initiated. In what concerns the others – the non-initiated, the
non-cultured - the option (defended less and less publicly, but present in the
way we programme and communicate) is to exclude, there being nothing really one
can do, since neither the family of these people nor the school had the capacity
to educate them, to prepare them for this experience.
Second
point: the neo-mandarins have changed the context created and defended by
"cultural snobs", and have come to promote access, the
democratization of culture. Although it is a different attitude, more open and
inclusive, in practice it also reveals another kind of guardian. The
neo-mandarins defend access, but they want to be the ones to define what is
worth having access to and how. In more than one meeting lately, when the issue
of "inclusion" was raised, the need for cultural spaces to be more
representative of the societies in which they are inserted and more welcoming
for the diverse people that make up this society, the answer varied little: it
usually referred to initiatives of the education service, guided tours or shows
which people attend as part of specific groups (people with disabilities,
seniors, immigrants, children and adults living in social institutions, people
from “underprivileged” backgrounds , etc.).
Third
point: the emergence of the neo-cosmopolitans in the cultural sector, willing
to give up their role as guardian and to truly open the doors for a greater
collaboration and involvement of "outsiders", for making the cultural
offer more representative and relevant, has also come to change this
relationship with people and the way they perceive and gain ownership of
cultural institutions. The goal of the neo-cosmopolitans is to move towards a
more democratic culture.
In order
for change to occur, the contribution of various agents is required. I will
concentrate on two of them: the associations representing the groups of people
referred above; and the professionals of the cultural sector.
Undoubtedly,
we need to have more participative citizens, who know their rights, who ask for
what’s theirs, who want to have a say on cultural institutions and access to
the cultural offer. The role of associations representing certain groups of
citizens is crucial here, because their voice is sometimes stronger and more
respected. These associations must promote and defend the rights of their
members, should intervene whenever necessary, should take into good
consideration the solutions they propose and those they accept. A few months
ago, an actor who would represent in a municipal theater reacted negatively to
the presence of sign language interpreters in front of the stage. The theater
sought alternatives and asked the Federation of the Associations of the Deaf
what they thought of the solution to broadcast the play in another room, from which
deaf viewers could follow the performance. The Federation considered the
solution to be acceptable. It was not. No solution that discriminates against
citizens and their right of access to culture is acceptable and associations
should be the first to defend it.
However,
there must also be a movement from within. A movement that allows to counteract
snobbish attitudes; a movement that allows neo-mandarins to develop and to
become neo-cosmopolitans. I believe that we will not have more demanding
citizens if we have snobbish cultural professionals, professionals only
prepared to repeat past recipes, without questioning them, without thinking
about the next step: promoting inclusion in the medium and long term.
Citizens
need to feel and see in practice that there is a different mentality on the
part of the professionals, a mindset that seeks to foster the relationship with
people, many people, not just the initiated, and create space for this
relationship to exist and to grow, to be real and lasting. We will be more
inclusive if citizens, in all their diversity, feel that the programming of
public cultural institutions is relevant to them; if they feel represented and
the representation entails an increased involvement; if communication is
developed with a view to getting accross to them, to engage in a dialogue using
a language understood by all; if our action does not promote access to the
cultural offer by maintaining people in segregated groups, but by taking steps
every day so that people can co-exist in the same space, enjoy the same offer.
If culture professionals fail to convince people of their honest intentions to
foster this relationship and to work towards a democratic culture, the offer
(not culture) will continue irrelevant, and therefore non-existent, for them.
Essays by John Holden:
