Quarantine readings #2 and a first version of my wishlist

Photo: Maria Vlachou

Since our confinement started, I had the opportunity of reading many thought-provoking articles and participating in dynamic online debates. There is a frequently expressed concern regarding the opportunity this crisis presents to rethink our practices, redefine our values and the system of valuing our work, develop relationships of proximity, respect and care both within our organisations and with our communities.

Will it happen? Will we manage to defy the usual (known) barriers and promote a new and necessary way of being and acting? Will we be able not to win the war (of changing the world), but a few decisive battles? Franco “Bifo” Berardi warned us back March that, when the quarantine ends, humans “will get the chance to rewrite the rules and break any automatism. But it is good to know, this won’t happen peacefully. We cannot foresee the shape the conflict will take, yet we must begin to imagine it. Whoever imagines first wins - one of the universal laws of history.”

Is this about postponing "business as usual"?

“I think it’s the responsibility of an artistic director, or let’s say, the collective, which is the artistic institution, to say here’s the pull that I’m feeling in our community. But, after all, isn’t it our responsibility to have a sort of eloquence or articulation around that, that maybe the community itself feels but does not deliver as a particular statement of need? So, I think being sensitive to that, to me, is leadership, saying here’s what we feel is in the air and what we think is worthy of giving voice to.”

A national tragedy: what does "Culture" have to do with it?

On Sunday morning, the news surpassed our worst nightmare. The great fire in the area of ​​Pedrógão Grande (central Portugal) had taken the lives of 19 people. Throughout the day, this number kept rising. The country was in shock.

The Maria Matos Municipal Theater in Lisbon was the first to react. Not only did it announce the cancellation of that day’s performance, as a result of the declaration of national mourning, but it also informed its followers on Facebook about possible ways to help and kept updating this information. It remained solidarious and involved.

Can culture make it?

Paper submitted to the Annual Conference on Cultural Diplomacy, which ends today in Berlin. A compilation of older posts and some new thoughts. Read 

Post scriptum

In the week of 11 May, my inbox was full of invitations for the celebration of the European Museum Night and International Day of Museums. On Facebook, it was no less tense, with museums and their governing bodies reminding us that all roads would lead to a museum. A great party atmosphere, an enormous offer all over the country, which was also translated into numbers. The media reported that there were 140 activities on the occasion of the European Museum Night (16 May) and 430 activities on International Museum Day (18 May) across 70 different Portuguese museums. The truth is that few of the activities proposed responded to ICOM challenge to reflect on “Museums for a sustainable society”. This left me thinking how museums actually perceive this yearly challenge and if it has any impact whatsoever on their practices – on Museum Day and in the rest of the year. Having said this, the richness and intensity of the programme, as well as the celebratory mood, could make one believe that the museum sector in Portugal shows clear signs of prosperity. Thus, news on 18 May of some museum staff going on strike, contesting the reduction in the payment of overtime, as well as the fact that they were obliged to work on a Monday (the day intended for weekly rest), were something of a marginal note  (watch the TV report).

On loyalty

I was recently told of the Head of a Regional Service of Antiquities in Greece, whose work had been positevely appreciated by many of her colleagues and members of the public, but who was threatened with disciplinary actions and was later also transferred, what was considered to be a kind of discreet ‘punishment’. Why did she become “persona non grata”? Maybe because she repeatedly informed her superiors of the inadequate guarding of one of the most important archaeological sites in her region, which has actually become a pasture for goat and sheep herds, and, having received no answer at all, she informed the general public of the situation and made available photos of the site. Maybe because she had also repeatedly informed her superiors of the lack of guards in a specific museum, warning of the possibility of closure as from a certain date if no solution was found. Her reports having been met with silence, she went ahead and closed the museum, apologizing to the public and making the reasons of the closure known.

I happen to believe that this is exactly the kind of attitude we should expect from a person who has the responsibility of running a public (and in this case, cultural) institution: to strive for adequate management; to take appropriate, responsible, action, in order to safeguard what is a common, public, good; to keep one’s superiors informed of any issues that might joepardize the proper running of the institution and stop it from fulfilling its mission; and, when necessary, to share that responsibility by informing all stakeholders, including the general public, the citizens.

I was not surprised, though, to hear of the threats of disciplinary action against that person. What is, in fact, expected of those people – and this is not only the case in Greece – is to be loyal to their superiors, local authority or government. What is understood by ‘loyal’, though, is to embrace each and every decision and practice coming from above, and, in case of disagreement, not to question them in public or to keep the discussion in the ‘family’, where it can be easily ignored. Sharing the discussion more broadly, with the society, is rarely tolerated and the punishment is seen by all of us, even if not in agreement, as expected, inevitable, natural to occur. We don´t support our colleagues, we don’t openly question the punishment, we don’t join them, so that, together, we may become stronger. Thus, we are all witnesses of the management of public cultural institutions in a way that is little transparent, where plans and actions are not being discussed, where public dialogue is not encouraged and where the professionals of the sector themselves keep silent or express their criticism very carefully and discreetly. In this context, of fear and self-censorship, it’s not easy to be critical, much less when acting alone. It’s not easy and it’s not very efficient either.

When living in a democratic society, though, we should expect a public manager’s loyalty to lie first and most of all with their service and the citizens. They have the obligation to challenge or oppose any decision or omission that jeopardizes that service. When required, they have the obligation to share the information and to help shape the public opinion regarding issues that are of public interest. In the UK, there’s such a thing as the National Museum Directors’ Council, which represents the leaders of the country’s national collections and major regional museums. The Council acts as an advocate, it represents its members to Government and other bodies, it is proactive in setting and leading the museums’ policy agenda and it is the forum where its members can discuss issues of common concern. Although the members are national museums – thus, funded by the government -, the Council is an independent organization. How do they do it? Have we got something to learn from them?

Recently, David Fleming, Director of National Museums Liveprool expressed a wish on Twitter that museums may “find their voice in 2015 in alerting the public to the impacts of austerity on what we are able to do compared with before”. I was left thinking: What does the Greek or Portuguese society really know about the actual conditions of a number of public cultural institutions? About the lack of money for the execution of basic and essential tasks, the multitasking, the extra (unpaid) hours, weekends at work, so that the boat may keep going? And are they interested in knowing? Do they consider these institutions to be theirs? Would it make any difference to them if they closed tomorrow?

What is our role, as professionals, in this context? Can we expect to have critical and demanding citizens, though, if the professionals of the sector themselves are not being openly critical and demanding? How do we help form informed and responsible citizens? Is there democracy without critical thinking and public dialogue? How do we defend transparency, meritocracy and intellectual honesty? Where is our public forum? Where does our loyalty lie and why?

More on this blog

“Either...or” or simply “and”?

Is it sad when a museum closes? Why?

Toy Museum, Sintra, Portugal

About a year and a half ago, my Australian colleague Rebecca Lamoin wrote in this blog about the Queensland Performing Arts Centre´s effort to understand what was the institution´s public value. Crucial questions were asked: What is the most important thing we deliver to our community? Why does our community love us? What people in our city would miss if we weren’t here anymore?

There are a number of cultural institutions around the world collecting data (more than quantitative data) that may help them define and prove their importance in people´s lives. Why? Because it might not be obvious to everyone, especially tax payers and political decision makers. It would make sense, though, even if it was just an internal mental exercise to undertake such an assessment. It´s worth taking a moment from time to time and evaluating the success factors of our projects and the relevance of our offer for the people we aim and are supposed to serve.

These thoughts came back once the news broke of a possible closure of the Toy Museum in Sintra (greater Lisbon Area). It seems that the museum is no longer sustainable, due to cuts in State funding and a sharp decrease in school and family visits. Culture professionals were quick to react. “It´s a shame”; “It´s sad”; “A tragedy”; “A misery”; “My favourite museum”. And every time I was reading a statement like that, I was asking myself: “Why?”. Why is it a shame? Why is it sad? Why is it a tragedy? Why is this someone´s favourite museum? What lies behind this kind of statements? What is their substance? Who knows? Does the museum and the foundation running it know?

But these were not the only questions in my mind. I would be also interested to know what normal visitors – not just culture professionals – think of the possible closure. How many times have they visited this particular museum? Why do they value it? What will they miss if it does eventually close? And beyond museum visitors, what does the population of Sintra think and feel regarding the closure of a museum in the town centre? Are they worried? Are they upset? Are they ready to fight for it and demand support from the municipality and the State?

Questions are also raised regarding the museum´s management. How long has this been going on? Did the Foundation take into consideration the changing - and rather hostile - political and economic context in which it is operating? What kind of measures has it taken so far? What is their plan B?

I haven´t found answers to these questions so far in public forums. I only know of a public petition on an online platform which, at the time I am writing these lines, has got approximately 2600 signatures. The text focuses on the collection and quotes only the collector, for whom, naturally, the objects are of great importance. It´s really a statement in the first person singular. The photo illustrating the petition shows an empty museum with series of objects behind glass, reaching almost the ceiling. I was left wondering how someone could have thought that this - quoting exclusively the collector and showing an empty museum - is the right approach at such a difficult moment. An approach that might convince those who know and, especially, those who don´t know the museum of its value and importance.

The Toy Museum is not an isolated case, unfortunately, in a country whose government does not consider culture to be a priority. A couple of years ago, the case of the Cork Museum in Silves (South Portugal) was handled in much the same way. A museum that once won the Micheletti Award of the European Museum Forum (an award for innovative museums in the world of industry, science and technics), ended up closing and I have no information regarding the destiny of its collection. Other projects, also in the performing arts field, are struggling or even disappearing. I suppose my ultimate question is “What are culture managers in this country doing about this?”. There must be more than “Such a shame” and “Such a pity” statements, there must be more than petitions. This is simply not enough, our organizations deserve more from us. People in this country deserve more from us.

More on this blog

On public value

Notes of despair

Cannabis was legalised in the State of Colorado in 2012 and the first shops commercializing it opened in the beginning of this year. According to The Independent, more than half of Colorado voters believe legalizing recreational marijuana has been good for the state. At the same time, the newspaper reports that the authorities have got serious concerns due to the consumption of inappropriate dosages, either by inexperience or confusion. A college student died last month when he jumped from his balcony, after consuming six times the recommended dosage.

Opera and the City

Musical journey in 5 acts, hommage to Maria Callas (Source: Lifo)

In early 2011, the debt of the National Opera of Greece (NOG) was over 17 million Euro and there was a serious threat of closure. When two weeks ago the NOG artistic director Myron Michaelides gave a press conference presenting the 2013-2014 season, the picture was quite different:

Guest post: "Serving the arts - Surviving the crisis", by Ira-Iliana Papadopoulou (Greece)

When one meets Ira Papadopoulou one can hardly guess the strength and passion that lie beneath an apparent calm, reserved and rather quiet character. She´s so strong and passionate that when she was informed that her annual budget would be cut down to…0, she thought: “OK, back to work now”. It´s not business as usual though. Ira and many other culture professionals in Greece are facing extremely hard conditions, not only related to cuts in the cultural sector, but related to measures that have led to the destruction of the country´s economy. Ira is giving us a brief account of a sector that remains alive, that resists and that is still able to offer a social antidote to a bitter economic reality. mv

Part of the installation EIGHT (ΟΚΤΩ), Nr.6, by George Tserionis, 2011 (drawing  on paper, 120x100). (Photo: george Tserionis) 

“Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable.”

George Bernard Shaw 

The suggested topic was clear: Greek culture in a time of crisis. I couldn’t resist. It was definitely something I could talk about. Few weeks ago, when Maria Vlachou kindly asked me to contribute with a guest post to her blog, I was more than willing to share my professional views and my sincere anguish about the current situation of the cultural institutions in Greece. And then, just before starting writing my text, I read one of Maria’s enlightening, older posts about the Greek crisis and the cultural sector and I realized that almost nothing has changed since 2010…  Or maybe not? Maybe there are a few changes, but I’ll leave it to the readers to make the final judgment whether these changes are for better or for worse.

Starting with the Greek Ministry of Culture, which is not one of the most important of the country any more (as the Greeks had been told back in 2004), but rather a sub-ministry of a magical combination: Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, Culture and Sports.  Yes! The ultra-ministry in which everything, education, religion, culture and sports can be combined and managed accordingly. Not far from the famous greek salad, a bit of tomato, a bit of olives, a bit of onion, a bit of feta cheese…

People working for public cultural institutions - or institutions publicly supervised and funded - are literally crying out for help. The money is not enough to cover even the electricity bills. They now know that they have to find alternative resources, but no one ever tried to give them some directions on how to go about it. What’s more, the State’s incentive strategy for encouraging private sponsorships is almost non-existent.    

The Attikon Cinema, the oldest cinema in downtown Athens, almost a year after  being burnt during the protests against the austerity measures. (Photo: Ira Papadopoulou)

Even the private cultural initiatives are now in the eye of the storm. Since there’s not such a thing as a financial or cultural vacuum, the private domain is struggling to keep their staff, the standards of their services, their sponsors and, at the same time, maintain an interesting cultural programming. This is a difficult equation to solve.  Some are standing still, some are falling and some seem determined to move on to a new kind of creativity and open up to ‘unknown words’, such as collaboration, volunteerism, membership schemes, crowdfunding. Nobody can assure them that there’s light at the end of the tunnel, but if they don’t try there’s no way to ever find out.     

And all this is taking place in a period when followers of the neo-nazi party of the Golden Dawn publicly threaten festival directors, authors and artists for presenting works that, according to their opinion, insult the “national ideals”.  It looks as if art is once again the perfect alibi for nationalistic hysteria and conspiracy theories of all sorts. At the end of the day, all economic crises go along with the ultimacy of social values…

But talking about “the economic, social and moral crisis of our times” became a tedious repetition and those working for the arts tried to step back and find their way out of this depressing discourse. Without underestimating the psychological and all other effects of the crisis, the artists seem to find the courage to resist and claim their right to discuss, create and suggest alternatives for presenting their work to the public. New cultural initiatives, new cultural productions, new art groups (like the cultural venue about:, the project space Ommu, the Contemporary Art Meeting Point, the artistic team Athens Art Network, to mention only a few), but most of all, a new spirit of getting together and try to get the audience’s attention out of the everyday misery.

Celebrating the annual comics festival Comicdom Con Athens. Main entrance of Hellenic American Union, March 2012. (Photo: Antonia Houvarda)

This is not to say that crises and hardship are beneficial to art. This is not about an art blossoming. There’s no such thing as magic. But if we believe in the arts and we keep up serving them the best way we can, there is a serious chance to survive and even flourish.

We owe Greek artists a lot. It is with their courage and the cultural managers’ persistence that the cultural beat of the country is still alive. And although hard to believe, there are more than a dozen visual art exhibitions openings every month, more people to theaters than all previous years and more public (and free of charge) events than ever. Lectures, concerts, festivals, performances, happenings, and so on…. A night out in Athens proves that there is a vivid cultural life out there, and if anything else, culture can still be the social antidote to our bitter economic reality.

Ira – Iliana Papadopoulou studied Sociology, Communications Policy and Arts Management in UK. Since 2004 is the Director of Cultural Affairs at the Hellenic American Union, a public-service cultural and educational institution based in Athens, Greece. Prior to joining the HAU, she worked as Director of Public Relations and Communications Manager at other cultural and educational organizations in Greece, such as the British Hellenic College and the Center for Neo-Hellenic Studies (official home of The Cavafy Archive). From 2010 to 2012 she was an International Fellow of the DeVos Institute of Arts Management at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC.

Clash of cultures

Aung San Suu Kyi in the burmese parliament on May 2, 2012. (Photo taken from http://photoblog.nbcnews.com)

I have been thinking about fear and the way it imprisons us, it restricts us, it makes us constantly accept compromises, it stops us from dreaming, it keeps us where we are, turning us into mediocre and ‘small’ human beings; the way and the reasons it is being cultivated. The culture of fear.

I ´ve recently read the book Freedom from Fear, a collection of texts and public speeches by Aung San Suu Kyi, the burmese activist, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who spent a number of years under house arrest, but who´s recently become a member of the burmese parliament. This meant a lot to me. The first petition I ever signed, I was 19-20 years old, was a petition of the International Amnesty for the liberation of Suu. One of the speeches I now read in the book started like this: “It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it."

With this sentence, my thoughts flew from Burma once again to the countries of the Arab Spring. I confess that, since all this started, I never looked at them as if they were countries which are now, ‘finally’, joining us – the ‘countries-guardians of democracy’, the ‘free’ west. On the contrary, following the developments of the Arab Spring and everything that followed, I felt that we should be paying a lot of attention, because there are a number of lessons here for us. What I saw in this revolution were people who joined forces to overcome the fear, who acted as one for the common good, who fought for democracy – for the rights it grants, but taking on the obligations as well. I´ve read articles in newspapers, texts in blogs, I´ve talked to some people who come from those countries and what I´ve encountered are citizens who feel responsible for maintaining the ideals which guided this action, who are perfectly conscious that the struggle is not over and that they must be on constant alert in order not to go back. Knowing the course we took, is it a total utopia to wish that they may remain like this? And that this actually works? Because I do confess that there were moments I felt ashamed: for the things we take for granted; for being part of the vicious circle of the culture of fear – sometimes in the position of those who wield it, other times subject to it -, unconscious of the ideals and values we have sacrificed on the way, or rather conscious, but acquitting ourselves with such excuses as “these are the rules of the game”, “it´s beyond me” or “I am following orders”. The words of Wassyla Tamzali, an algerian writer and activist who participated in a debate in Lisbon on the Arab Spring, sound extremely relevant, for all of us. Tamzali quoted Michel Foucault, who said that “Revolution is to say ‘no’ to the king”, and added: “In Algeria there was not this magic junction [as in Tunisia] among all elements of society. [In Tunisia] there had always been resistance, resistence to the ruler had always existed and within various social categories (the artists, the intellectuals, women, judges, miners...), but never had there been this junction of all categories. There is a revolution only when all social categories come together and take a stand.”  

In this context, the interview of the portuguese Secretary of State for Culture (SEC) to the french newspaper Le Monde last month caused me some consternation. Although he did not give the interview in his capacity as SEC, it is not possible to separate the man from the role, especially since his statements are deeply related to issues concerning a people´s culture.

Francisco José Viegas said: “(...) I belong to a generation which at a certain moment must answer ‘yes’. And accept compromises. When our country is going through a terrible crisis, writing in newspapers and blogs about what culture and society should be, how to help cinema overcome stagnation or save the libraries, is not enough anymore. (...) And he added: “We live in a society which has lost its dreams. The portuguese are afraid of the future, of speaking. And this is happening after the Inquisition, which was 300 years ago, and 50 years of Salazar´s fascist regime. Today, with the crisis, it´s still going on. It´s terrible.” (read the interview here).

It´s true, the Inquisition was 300 years ago and the country went through 50 years of a fascist regime. But there have also been 40 years of ‘democratic’ regime. What have they produced? A culture of fear; a culture of yes men; a culture of compromise, which makes even some heads which are sticking out to bend, to align with mediocrity, in order to survive (it´s very much worth reading an article by greek journalist Nikos Demou, The alliance of the lesser; the ‘democratic’ regime has nurtured similar attitudes in countries like Greece, with a different historic and political background from that of Portugal, which makes one think that the Inquisition and Salazar might not be the only ones to be held responsible). 

It might not be enough to write in newspapers and blogs about what culture and society should be. But it is, undoubtedly, enough to be governed and manipulated, at all levels and in all environments, by those who belong to the SEC´s ‘generation’, the ‘generation’ (which actually embraces different generations, including the younger ones) which nurtures the culture of fear, which thinks that it must say ‘yes’ and accept compromises. Is it not time, also here, in our ‘countries-guardians of democracy’, to confront the culture of fear by recovering our culture of democratic thinking and practice? Is it not time to say ‘no’ to the kings and their courts and to declare certain compromises to be unacceptable, intolerable? Is it not time to dream of something more than mediocrity? To educate citizens who are attentive, sensitive, tolerant, demanding and critical, who are involved in the affairs of the polis, who may express their opinion freely and with a sense of responsibility, without being afraid of getting punished for it? To nurture the imagination, to support creativity, to reward effort and merit? To expect those whom we trust with an executive power to be accountable and all of us, as citizens, to take on the right and obligation to demand it? Especially because, as the SEC reminded us, this country (as others) is going through a terrible crisis, one that is not just financial. And this is also a question of Culture.

So, what´s the plan?

To Mónica Calle and Alexandra Gaspar, and also to Luís Tinoco; who might not share these views, but they, nevertheless, inspire them.

Every meeting, seminar or conference I´ve attended in the last months had the words ‘crisis’ and ‘challenge’ included somewhere: the theme, a panel, some communications. It could be a positive sign. It could mean that we are aware of the critical situation we´re confronted with and wish to tackle it, face it. We wish to react and take the future in our hands.

But it could also mean... nothing. Just nothing. As in all those occasions rarely did I hear concrete ideas and proposals. I heard criticism (usually of government decisions); I heard demands (usually addressed to the government); I heard the same things we´ve been saying for years now (usually about the government´s responsibilities and obligations, about how important we are, how underfunded and neglected and undervalued by government and society alike, although they should all know better...).

Could it be that the greatest challenge of all is to put an end to all this? To the repetitions, to our myopia, to self-pity, to our inertia? Because we are illuded if we think that we act when we just demand from others, when we just concentrate on the responsibilities of others, when we just try to keep things from getting worse (that is, even worse, because they had never been that good). What are our responsibilities? What´s our role in all this? What are our ideas, our priorities? In brief, what´s our plan?

It´s our responsibility, part of our role, to contol and criticize the governement. To demand that it fulfills its obligations towards the citizens (although many times it looks as though we forget about them and only demand for ourselves and ‘our’ institutions). It´s easy too, though, if we plan to do just that. But it doesn´t really take us anywhere. Governments, politicians, ministers, do not necessarily have a plan... But we must have one. Not only should we take this on as part of our job, but it should also be expected of us.

Firstly, from everything I´ve seen and heard and read lately, I would say that one of the most worrying things we should think about is that we are still so cut off from society. Comfortable and haughty and sure of ourselves in our role of guardians, we still fail to understand that the people we are supposed to be working for - I am referring to the citizens, many of whom, let´s not forget it, voted for the party that formed the current government and which had announced during the campaign the end of the Ministry of Culture -; so, these people are looking for dialogue and not for lectures; they wish to be partners and not to be ordered about; the want to feel at home and not as if they were trespassing; they want to undestand and not to be dealing with an elite club. Ignoring all this is signing our irrelevance sentence.

A second point I would like to make is the urgent need to consider and start working on alternative sources of funding. Depending on one source has not proved to be a good idea. Insisting that this source continues to flow without looking at the same time for alternatives reveals, at the least, a certain stubbornness, little productive. Overcoming our allergy to talking about making money is an essential part of this process. Cultural institutions are not for profit, but this doesn´t mean they shouldn´t be making a profit. It´s that profit they would be able to reinvest in their activity and manage to go further, to do more.

Both first and second points, which are closely related (that is, the foundations of the financial sustainability of cultural institutions are also based on their relationship with society), lead to a third one: the need for these processes to be led by adequately prepared professionals. Would you trust your defence in court in a non-professional lawyer? Your health in a non-professional doctor? The construction of your house in a non-professional engineer? With all respect to amateurs and enthusiasts, who are absolutely fundamental in our field, how can the cultural sector still not look for the appropriate professionals for each job? How can we ever build trust and confidence in our dealings with other sectors, essential for our sustainability, if we are not adequately prepared?

And one final and indispensable point: speak truth to power. It´s not an exclusive portuguese phenomenon the fact that many (most?) leaders prefer to be surrounded by ‘yes-men’. Some weeks ago, on the occasion of the dismissal of Liz Forgan, Chair of Arts Council in England, by the Secretary of State for Culture, Jeremy Hunt, Dany Louise was writing in her blog: “The basic principle is that if you want good – or even excellent – governance, you don’t surround yourself with yes-men and yes-women, but with capable intelligent thinking professionals and an environment that values and enables those capabilities. You encourage them to tell you when you are misguided or making the wrong decision, and you expect them to come up with viable alternatives. You do this because it is the critical factor in making you a really good leader, one who makes the best possible judgements.” (it´s worth reading the complete text here).

“Crisis” in greek means, in the first place, a decisive point, a crucial point, a turning point. A crisis presents us with challenges and also opportunities for change. This is the moment to evaluate the situation, to define objectives, to set priorities. All too often, the distance between declarations of intentions and putting those intentions into practice is quite big and rarely covered. This sector needs to identify those able to cover this distance, to move things forward. This sector also needs to identify those who understand the notion of 'accountability'*. Good leaders will need to look for the best consultants. And the best consultants must be given the space to speak their minds up. Freely, objectively, responsibly.

* Accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for actions, products, decisions and policies, including the administration, governance and implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting consequences (Source: Wikipedia)

Still on this blog

We are for people. Or... are we?
Ministry of Culture: Which culture? Whose culture?
La crise oblige?  (i) Some questions
La crise oblige  (ii)  Programming challenges
La crise oblige?  (iii)  Management challenges
Ministry of Culture: Can we keep the debate going for a second week?

The 21st John Hopkins International Fellows in Philanthropy Conference will be taking place in Lisbon, at the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, on 4 and 5 July. The conference theme is Arts and economic crisis – Opportunities for the third sector? (conference programme)

Barcelona: 1 conference, 2 museums putting it to the test

Last week I was in Barcelona for the conference Glocal Audiences in Culture: Global Cities, Local Audiences, an Audiences Europe Network initiative. There were both museums and performing arts institutions in the programme, two worlds that rarely come together to discuss issues they have in common.

Quiet often, in these conferences we get to know projects which seem to be the answer to all our wishes and worries, but whose presentation remains rather superficial. We end up not knowing how they were developed and how (and if) they have been evaluated. This conference was no exception, but, even though, there were some moments and discussions of particular interest. The programme included one introductory session and five panels, which I´ll try to brielfy summarize.

Introductory session: Tourism vs. local audiences
We were presented with the results of a visitor survey which indicates that the big majority of the spanish do not visit museums in their country, but don´t fail to do so when travelling abroad; that more than half of visitors to Barcelona museums are foreigners, while 27% reside in this city. Visitors´ perception of museums is that they mean “learning”, “curiosity”, “peace”, “admiration”, “discovery”. Non-visitors´ or occasional visitors´ perception is that they mean “boredom”, “effort”, “incomprehension”, “discovery”. Speakers mentioned the need to create a feeling of belonging among local communities, to establish emotional links, to create spaces of encounter. One must admit that this is nothing new. I was thus left thinking if it makes sense to continue investing in this sort of one-off surveys which aim to study the relationship between audiences and museums in general, instead of working with the objective to change some of these indicators. On the other hand, in the case of museums which have the means to carry out continuous surveys (we were presented here with the Louvre case), which allow them to evaluate their work over time, registering modifications and new trends, one may find, no doubt, relevant indicators of change.

Panel 1: Big museums for local audiences

The need to concentrate on the individual and adapt the offer to everyone´s needs was once again mentioned here. Is it really possible that museums like the Prado and the Louvre, which receive millions of visitors every year, are able to fullfil this objective? This is what we dind´t find out in this panel. The mere presentation of initiatives is not enough for us to understand if the objective was met. In the meantime, there were mentioned here some points that deserve to be considered: the importance of collecting, using and sharing data; of seeking new partnerships, also among smaller museums, located in the area of the 'big ones'; of stepping outside the museum boundaries and going to meet the people; finally, of considering as a performance indicator not only the number of visitors, but also whether the museum has managed to meet (or not) visitor expectations.

Panel 2: Pricing strategies in time of crisis

Here´s a panel that didn´t meet expectations. Speakers presented their discount policies – the usual ones, those which have always existed – without a special consideration, as it was expected, regarding the challenges presented by the actual economic crisis. Challenges which, in my view, mainly concern those who normally visit cultural spaces (more or less frequently) and who might now have a more limited capacity to purchase tickets. What can we do in order to provide access to those who wish to visit and guarantee a revenue for our institutions? In what concerns free entries and the illusion that they bring, just by themselves, people who don´t have the habit of visiting, there seem to exist consensus (at least, nobody expressed his/her disagreement): this is really an illusion.

Panel 3: From user to client

Some truly relevant questions were raised in this panel concerning the need to put the individual in the centre of our strategic plans, to develop new audiences (I have stopped using this expression, but this is what was said) through relationship marketing, to create proximity and a personalized service, to take advantage of Customer Relationship Management tools (in Portugal, I believe that only CCB has been using them). There was also some discussion regarding the importance of maintaining a balance between what people want and programming needs (which reminded me of the very interesting Lead or Follow debate, which took place in January and the reading of which I recommend).

Panel 4:Tourist cities for local audiences

This was, in my opinion, the most interesting panel, where we truly shared and discussed worries and thoughts regarding the tension created in cities of all sizes between the local community and tourists. There is a real need to be relevant for different audiences, which requires very specific strategies in order to nurture and maintain a relationship with local people (from special programming to offering free coffee). The most interesting case for me was Hermitage Amsterdam, which ‘insists’ on positioning itself as an international destination, when tourists don´t see it this way and the local community, with which it has already established a very strong relationship, particularly appreciates the fact that this museum doesn´t draw the hoards of tourists one finds in other museums in this city.

Panel 5: Cultural institutions take the street

And it was this last panel that kept a pleasant surprise for us. An inspiring project of great impact: The Grand Tour was a National Gallery initiative, in partnership with Hewlett Packard (HP), which spread in the city centre, sometimes in the most unexpected places, chosen with a great sense of humour, high quality copies (prints) of the gallery´s most famous paintings. The objectives were: to raise awareness regarding the museum; to inform the public that some of the most known paintings could be found in the gallery; to let them know that entry was free; to make people talk about art. Next to each copy, there was a label with some basic information about the piece and a phone number for those who wanted to know more. Information was also available on the microsite and cold be downloaded. The museum considers that mission was accomplished: the number of visitors increased significantly, and many were coming holding the map that was created for this initiative looking for the original works. In many cases, the photos speak for themselves, in the meantime, there was also a book about this experience and people´s reactions to it.

Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow

Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow

Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow

I took advantage of my two days in Barcelona to visit two of my favourite museums. Arriving at the Maritime Museum, I found out that the permanent exhibition was closed due to works. I didn´t remember having seen a warning on the website (available only in catalan and spanish), but I checked when I got back to my hotel: there was no warning. Thus, I visited a temporary exhibition on the Titanic. Before I entered, I looked for the cloakroom to leave my heavy bag, but there wasn´t one. Entering the exhibition, I was given an audioguide (this one, yes, in more than two languages), which obliged visitors to follow a specific path, without being able to choose which objects or sections they might want to learn more about. When cases were small, too many visitors accumulated in front of them, making it impossible to see the objects we were hearing about. I turned the audioguide off and read just a few labels. Along the different sections of the exhibition, more than once I wondered if the objects in front of me were originals or copies (a museum has the obligation to mark the difference). I approached three members of staff to ask for information about this, all very nice, but none of them spoke english.

Museu Marítim de Barcelona, Titanic exhibition  (Photo: mv)

The following day it was the turn of the Museum of the History of Catalunia, in my opinion, one of the best history museums. I was glad to see english labels this time. In the past, I couldn´t understand how at the history museum of a people who wished to proclaim their difference and autonomy that same history was not told to foreign tourists, at least in english. On the other hand, the french friend who came with me to that visit, a history teacher at the French School of Barcelona for four years now, had never heard of this museum, he was visiting for the first time (and loved it). Wouldn´t one expect that among this museum´s priority target audiences would be history teachers of the city and region?

Museu d´Història de Catalunia  (Photo: mv)

These are, yes, two of my favourite museums in this city, because they know how to tell a good story. Nevertheless, they both put the reflections and conclusions of the conference to the test and reminded me that, in many cases and even in what concerns issues that seem to be obvious or simple, theory and practice remain quite distant. Why is that?

Still on this blog

Why things aren´t happening?

Crise oblige? (iii) Management challenges



Photo © ORF (taken from http://www.kleinezeitung.at/)

What a great management lesson was the open letter of the music director of Liceu of Barcelona, Michael Boder, in response to the announcement of the administration that, due to financial difficulties, the theatre would close for two periods of one month each, between March and July (read here). And it was not just a management lesson. Boder showed a great sense of mission and responsibility, essential qualities for anyone who heads an institution and decides its course.

“Why do we exist?”, the music director asked Liceu´s general manager, immediately providing him with some answers: we exist to play, play more and not less; because, in moments like these, music carries a very important message; because music can move our inner selves; because, in times of crisis, a cultural institution can and should send a social message; because we are at the service of social cohesion; because culture brings comfort and gives ideas (read the open letter here).

But Boder raised some more issues in his open letter, related to the need to reevaluate the theatre´s inflated administration, the collective agreement and chorus and orchestra working hours, which he consideres insufficient. He didn´t hesitate to put on the table the theatre´s fixed costs in order to guarantee the continuity of the programming. Because he knows, just like the administration should know, that without programming an institution disappears from the 'map', that is from the heads and hearts of its audience; it loses its credibility and the prestige it took uears to build; it is sentenced to internal decline and demotivation; and it seriously damages its image, when the message it sends to society, especially in times of crisis and considerable sacrifices, is that the priority are the salaries and benefits of the employees (even if they have been ‘sentenced’ to inertia), and not the cultural offer, which is the main reason why it exists (in the meantime, the administration of the Liceu has revoked its decision for closure – read here).

In the last two years, the financial situation of many orchestras around the world was news. One of the most famous cases was that of the Philadelphia Orchestra, an orchestra with a reputation at an international level, which filed for bankruptcy almost a year ago. Nevertheless, the case I would like to concentrate on here is that of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra. Detroit is a city that gaine prosperity thanks to the automobile industry, which supported, among other things, a number of cultural institutions, including the orchestra. In the last years, a number of economic and social factors have dramatically changed the environment the orchestra is operating in: the decline of the automobile industry, the collapse of the stock market, the fact that the population decreased by almost 50% in a decade, but also aging audiences, a decrease in tickets sales, the debt still to be repayed for a recent auditorium extension. The administration went ahed with cuts, including a 23% cut in the salaries of the musicians (accepted after a strike that lasted for months and kept the orchestra silent for most part of the season). Nevertheless, cuts are not a guarantee for sustainability. Socio-demographic changes are a much greater challenge for this orchestra (and for cultural institutions in general) and its sustainability depends a lot on the way it will react and adapt to them. Operating now in an 80% afro-american city (there are only 4 black musicians in the orchestra), where the average income has drastically decreased, where there has been no musical education in schools for years, it is urgent to try and involve new, diversified audiences, representative of the population that now lives in Detroit and other neighbouring cities. One of the initiatives of the orchestra is playing in community centres, churches and synagogues, points of encounter with its new target audiences (read here).

The problems cultural institutions are facing nowadays in various parts of the world are not just financial. They are varied and they are connected. They relate to management, programming, education, communications. The world in which we are operating is different, constantly changing and developing.

With the aim to approach some issues related to management this time, I would quote once again Michael Kaiser, who says that, in the first place, we are facing a revenue problem (and not a problem of expenses, although that´s where we always start from). And the word ‘revenue’ specifically refers to: state and municipal investment; sponsorship money (corporate, foundations, individuals); revenue from rentals and other services; ticket sales (when applicable). In Portugal and other countries, after years of (almost absolute) dependence on the money the State was willing or able to invest, there is an urgent need to start looking for alternative revenue sources. And although the obvious option seem to be companies and foundations, we cannot fool ourselves. This is not a relationship that lasts for ever. These organizations invest their money because they want to see their name associated to a specific project; because this makes sense within their strategic plan. In the meantime, strategic plans change, they are orientated according to specific objectives and priorities, which don´t remain unaltered. Thus, the third revenue source becomes decisive for a sustainable future: the people, the individuals who relate to us and want to support us with donations, buying tickets and subscriptions or memberships. This relationship, yes, if valued and cherished, may last for ever. Even after death… One of the most touching stories I have heard recently is that of a man who left all his money to an orchestra - having set aside just the money for his funeral –, because he was homebound for years and one of his greatest (and few) pleasures in life was listening to the orchestra´s live transmissions on the radio (for legal reasons, due to the donor´s express wish, it is not possible to give specific information about this donation).

However, we do have cost problems as well. When we are forced to cut (due to a crisis, for instance), we are always capable of identifying those cases in which our financial resources are not managed in the most efficient way and we try to optimize them. This also involves managing human resources efficiently. In general, we are not prepared, or willing, to consider the waste of money not only on inflated teams, but mainly when the existing teams are not reaching their true potential. Michael Boder did not hesitate to admit that the number of working hours of the orchestra and the chorus were insufficient. In the case of many orchestras around the world (see links at the end of the post), musicians and other employees were involved in the process of ‘repositioning’, they did not consider their salaries and benefits to be ‘sacred’, they did not place them ahead of the need to continue playing, because they didn´t want to lose their place in the life of their audience. At the same time, I believe that employees are more willing to consider this kind of negotiations and to accept sacrifices when they feel that there is an honest and genuine wish, a determination on behalf of the administrations to find solutions that will allow organizations not only to survive for a little longer, but to create the conditions for a healthy and sustainable future for all.

In times like these, in cases like these, there is a greater need for cultural institutions to be managed by people who have adequate academic preparation and /or professional experience and training), professionals who will be able to drive the boat with competence, knowledge, discipline and with due sensibility towards the field´s especificities. Because it is possible to have financially healthy cultural institutions, they exist (read Michael Kaiser´s article here). Maybe once we manage to overcome the rhetoric regarding the “commodification of culture” (in which normally a cultural manager is the equivalent of a supermarket manager and his specialized work is seen as a terrible threat to access to culture for all), we might be more open to try and understand how and why others have made it.

We are used to saying that times are not easy. Have they ever been? Times now are ‘simply’ more difficult. To move out from our comfort zone, to overcome the sterile language of the manifestos which only complain but propose nothing, to look at the reality around us and confront it (in a responsible, realistic, knowledgeable and professional way) is a pemanent need. Perhaps more urgent at certain times. But permanent. As Russell Willis Taylor, CEO of National Arts Strategies, said in a speech that is worth listening to until the end, “There are no crises, only tough decisions”.

Still on this blog
La crise oblige? (I) Some questions
La crise oblige? (II) Programming challenges
Building a family: lesson from the social sector
On family: second week at the Kennedy Center
Changes: are we paying enough attention?


More readings
Philadelphia Orchestra players OK tentative contract with deep cuts
CSO posts a deficit for last year
Keeping the Lights On: Sacramento Opera Seeks to Remain Viable
Birmingham Symphony Orchestra pay cut

Crise oblige? (ii) Programming challenges

"Community relevance is the first and foremost element of sustainability.”

WolfBrown In Is sustainability sustainable?

I was asking myself a few months ago if we were paying enough attention to the changes that are taking place in the socio-cultural environment in which we are acting. I had just finished reading two texts that showed me new ways and helped me structure my ideas regarding the relationship between cultural institutions and their audiences: Culture and Class by John Holden and The Excellence Barrier by Diane Ragsdale. There were both defending the urgency, importance and need to look outwards; to try and understand the habits, tastes and expectations of the communities we are here to serve; to try and relate to them, making our offer more relevant to their lives, creating demand together with them. Engaging them.

A photo from the exhibition In Your Face (Art Gallery of Ontario, 2007), an exhibition of portraits collected from the general public to celebrate the inividuality and diversity of Canada.

I have now read a third text, a report on a research that was undertaken in the USA, UK and Australia, called Getting in on the Act: How arts groups are creating opportunities for active participation. It presents the various ways in which we can get the audience involved (from the spectator who´s simply a receiver to the member of the audience who gets involved as an artist) and brings to us a number of case studies from various institutions and initiatives. It also presents some conclusions which stengthen some of my ideas and confirm some intuitions regarding the way forward for us here as well:

- It is believed that, now more than ever, the arts organizations that will thrive in our current environment will be the ones who create new and meaningful opportunities for people to engage (p.2);

- Culture is not ‘being shaped’ by someone or something else. We all are shaping our culture. We all are creating what is meaningful, vibrant and real – the amateurs and the experts, the institutional and the individual, the privileged and the disenfranchised, the mainstream and the alternative (p.4);

- Technology has fundamentally changed the way people interact, learn and think about culture. What is different now is the unprecedented ability of the average oerson to access, make and share art and ideas on a global scale (p.6);

- It is important to recognize that the young people entering today´s cultural scene are not aesthetically bankrupt. More often, their creative interests lie elsewhere – beyond attendance (p.11);

- It is becoming more difficult to satisfy everyone with one experience. Audience development, therefore, is not just a marketing problem. Primarily, it is a programming issue. Attracting the new generation of audiences and visitors will require a transformation in programming, not just better marketing (p.11).

In my previous post I raised some questions regarding the impact the currebt crisis might have on the way cultural institutions are being programmed. Even in periods where there is no crisis, any institution, any business, any sector knows that there are factors that affect their activity and force them to re-evaluate and adapt. These are external factors – social, political, economic, technological – which are beyond our control, but which we cannot ignore, since they present us with opportunities and threats. These are realities we must always be aware of. Thus, I would say that the crisis ‘simply’ makes it urgent for us to wake up, to react, to not continue doing everything the way we´ve always done it.

I don´t think the crisis will make people less willing to partiicpate and get involved in cultural activities. On the contrary, demand might even grow. There is no doubt that people are being much more careful in the way they invest the, little, money they have. But they continue to invest on what they consider essential, unmissable, relevant, entertaining, inspiring. There is no doubt that, due to the crisis, audience numbers have recently decreased, but there are still shows that sell out or sell a significant proportion of their seat capacity. And it is also at this time of crisis that people form a long queue to visit the dinosaur exhibition currently showing in Lisbon, despite the high ticket price (and bad quality of the exhibition).

The question here is: do we know what is essential, unmissable, relevant, entertaining, inspiring for the people we aim to serve in order to, through our programming, keep the relationship with them alive? Maybe not... I believe the majority of us belong to the group John Holden calls “the new mandarins”: we fight for access to culture, but to that culture which we consider valid; we fight for the ‘democratization of culture’ but haven´t realized that this concept has developed into another, that of ‘cultural democracy’. Can the crisis force us to become aware of what has been happening, for quite some time now, around us; to abandon our role of ‘guardians’ and also consider what our audiences crave to experience, discuss, debate, create, share? Can the crisis make us share the responsibilty of programming? Would we be compromising its quality?

The idea of sharing this responsibility is not completely new for cultural institutions. All over the world, there are museums that choose the subjects of new exhibitions and create contents for them with the help of members of the communities they are serving - their opinions, knowledge, memories and objects; when I visited Tate Britain a few years ago, next to the labels written by curators I found those written by visitors – equally interesting and, in some cases, more understandable and touching; and, to give one more example, Concord Museum in the USA is celebrating its 125th anniversary with a temporray exhibition – with the suggestive title Crowdsourcing a Collection -, where members of the public were asked to choose and talk about objects from the museum collection that have a special meaning to them. Also in the field of the performing arts we can find this kind of experiences. For example, in 2009, the Theatre Royal Statford East (known as 'the theatre of the people') started consulting the audience for the preparation of the programme of the first semester of 2012 (read here).

Nevertheless, and although these initiatives demonstrate great willingness on behalf of cultural institutions for a more active involvement of the public, these are still decided and ‘guided’ by them. It´s not exactly sharing the responsibility of programming. The change that is occurring at this moment demonstrates a willingness to co-curate. Just as the public is willing to finance cultural projects (crowdfunding initiatives are multiplying all over the world), there are lots of knowledgeable and interested people willing to contribute for selection or creation of a cultural product. It´s the so-called crowdsourcing. Ian David Moss and Daniel Reid, authors of one of the most inspiring texts I have recently read, Audiences at the Gate: Reinventing Arts Philanthropy Through Guided Crowdsourcing, explore this idea and suggest a wikipedia-like system in order to discover and finance new artistic projects. In this context, I found extremely relevant for the future of theatres a piece of news I read a few days ago about the Slowbizz network, which aims to connect talented musicians and music fans for small, in-house concerts (read here).

Join the Slowbizz.com artists community from slowbizz on Vimeo.

Does this path towards shared responsibility for programming make sense for our cultural institutions? Probably more than ever, especially in what concerns public institutions. Because the changes in the way arts and culture are being created, distributed and consummed (and the place where this occurs) are a reality; because the volume of production is so big that we would not be able to know and follow everything, in order to remain updated and relevant; because there are, indeed, people, non-professionals, but with an excellent knowledge and experiences, willing to share them. And because, at a moment where people are forced to make choices, the cultural institutions that will win the race are those that will better engage their audiences in their activity and remain relevant for them. We don´t know everything, but I am sure we know enough to be able to manage with honesty, intelligence, creativity and quality (and also with humility) the sharing of such a responsibility, as the programming of a cultural institution, with those we are here to serve.

More readings

Roy Strong, Return of the culture vulture

Tom Jacobs, Are the arts irrelevant to the next generation?

Jane Howard, We don´t need your traditonal legitimate taste or how the youth are redefining culture

Libby Maynard, Expanding community participation

James Page, Is Leonardo worth the wait? Ask the audience, not the experts

And more

Gripsrud, J., Hovden, J.F., Moe, Hallvard, Changing relations: Class, education and cultural capital (report on Norway)

Shirky,C., Cognitive surplus: How technology makes consumers into collaborators