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.”

“Whites only”: would you go in?

There are two recent incidents which made me think. They are lessons learnt and they influence my way of evaluating situations and making professional and personal decisions.

Guest post: "Pioneer Cities of Culture and how Istanbul changed the narrative", by Filiz Ova

World Cultural Cities (Tianfu) Symposium, Chengdu, China

I am writing this article from from Beijing, on my way back from the World Cultural Cities (Tianfu) Symposium in Chengdu, China. I am amazed by their openness, friendly hospitality and, at the same time, their urge to westernize. It reminds me very much of Turkey at the beginning of the Republic, when scholars, artists, specialists from Europe were invited to implement the principles of high culture.  Contrary to China, however, not with the aim to become a global superpower, but with the somewhat naïve intention to become a secular democratic Republic.

Let's set Mark Deputter free

Image taken from the newspaper Público. Photo: Nuno Ferreira Santos

It was a good exercise for all of us the with conversation with the Municipal Councilor for Culture Catarina Vaz Pinto (CVP) yesterday at the Maria Matos Theatre (MMT). As it has been a good exercise all the discussion generated after the announcement of her decision to lease MMT and turn it into a for-profit space with programming for a larger public.

Still on Maria Matos: a theatre's ethos

"Have a Great day!", by Vaiva Grainytė, Lina Lapelytė, Rugilė Barzdžiukaitė (Photo: Simonas Svitra). Maria Matos Theatre, 2017

Ethos: (Greek éthos, -ous) noun
distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group or institution
Source: Merriam-Webster dictionary

Anne Pasternak became the director of the Brooklyn Museum in New York in 2015, succeeding Arnold L. Lehman, who had held the post for 18 years. Anne impressed me positively in her first interview for the New York Times when she stated: "I am excited to build on that ethos of welcome".

At the time of Pasternak's appointment, there were several voices criticising the choice of someone who had never worked in a museum before. However, this sentence, right at the end of the article in the New York Times, was enough for me to think: She got it! She understood "who" the museum she's going to work for is!

Operatic struggles

Walking around in Vienna, three or four years ago, I came across the poster of Oper Frankfurt’s “Hansel and Gretel”. Much time has passed, but I can still recall the smile and the warm feeling this poster provoked. Simple, direct, funny, informative. It was that one moment and it was about opera.

Resonance

It’s always a pleasure and an inspiration reading Nina Simon’s posts. But the ones I’ve always liked the most were those where she shares her learnings from being in a position of responsibility, such as Year One as a Museum Director… Survived! or her latest Why We Moved the Abbott Square Opening -  A Mistake, a Tough Call and a Pivot.

We’re all too used to museum directors – or other people with a responsibility to lead in our field – available to discuss happy endings. Rarely the process, never the failures. Even when they feel compelled to comment on actions and situations that receive negative criticism, there always seems to be a way of getting around the whole thing, finding justifications, concentrating on irrelevant details, offering alternative truths. Anything that can take our attention away from what should essentially be discussed. Anything but a clear “It’s true, we were wrong about this, we’re here to discuss it.”

To charge or not to charge: the data

As far as I am aware of, decisions to charge or not to charge and how in Portuguese national museums are never based on research. Those who scrap admission fees do it in the name of “democratisation” and “accessibility” and state that the loss of income is not significant (never mentioning how much it is, though). Those who reinstate them usually speak of the need to generate some income.

Although previous research and summative evaluation is not part of our practice in Portugal, this is not the case in other countries. And even though we seem to lack our own specific data, we can always learn from the experience and shared knowledge of others.

Looking for sandy ground

"Free access to museums for under 30s", one reads in portuguese newspapers. The measure was approved in parliament yesterday. 

"Can anyone explain to me the logic of under 30s?", asks a Brazilian colleague.

"Is it to stimulate young families, like couples with small children?", replies another colleague. "Is it because it was found that unemployment is higher among the under 30s?"

Is it worth looking for the logic? Was there a logic? Was the measure based on any management report? Was it based on some audience survey? Were the professionals of the sector consulted? Are there concrete objectives that can be evaluated in one or two years’ time?

Managing museums: a portuguese case

"Panels of St. Vincent" at NMAA (image taken from the National Museum of Ancient Art Facebook page)

The claim of a new legal status, of a special status, by the National Museum of Ancient Art (NMAA) in Lisbon has resulted in a very healthy debate among museum professionals in Portugal, especially (and unfortunately) after the announcement of the Minister of Culture that this status will actually be given to the museum. Independent of our criticism, positive or negative, of this case and this process, there is no doubt that we owe this very necessary debate to the NMAA, its director, António Filipe Pimentel, and to the entire museum staff*.

The Italian slap

Eike Schmidt, new director of the Uffizzi (image taken from The Art Newspaper, Photo: Zuma Press/Alamy)

“A slap on the face of Italian archaeologists and art historians.” According to an article by Margarita Pournara in the Greek newspaper I Kathimerini, this was the statement of Vittorio Sgarbi, former Italian Minister of Culture, regarding the appointment of seven foreign professionals as directors of Italian museums.

Since the appointment was announced on 18 August, the issue was widely discussed in the media. 

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).

One good idea, two responses and some lessons

It’s 125 years since Vincent Van Gogh’s death. Starting May 3 and for 125 days, the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam will be answering 125 questions regarding the painter, his life and his work. The museum invites anyone interested to ask a question to send it through their website and a page especifically created to present the results of this Q&A (watch the promotional video and visit the webpage).

What we know and what we don't do about it

In the last few weeks, I had the chance to talk to a couple of colleagues regarding some accessibility issues in their exhibitions. Things like poorly illuminated labels, bad contrast between letters and background, labels placed too low, objects exhibited at a high level and without inclination, long and complicated texts. I believe that these are issues that can easily be solved, without any further investment in money, just with some forward planning and the concern not to exclude. Actually, when exhibitions are designed to be inclusive, not only do they not cost more, but they can actually bring more money in, as more people will be able to access them.

I felt a bit puzzled when the people I approached told me that they knew all about those problems. Why did things happen that way, then? Is it possible that we are consciouly creating barriers to our exhibitions’ content? What do we do them for, then, if not for people to enjoy them?

I feel the same kind of puzzlement in conferences or training courses, when we discuss issues of management, communications, marketing, visitor services, education, etc. Quite often, some colleagues approach me and say: “We’ve been telling our superiors what you’ve just said to for years and years.”

Thus, it seems that there’s no lack museum professionals (including museum guards) who are aware of a number of small and big management or communications problems.  We have also got feedack from visitors themselves, through visitor books, comment cards, visitor studies, etc. Finally, there is also the contribution of academics, thinkers, bloggers, such as Maria Isabel Roque - who recently reminded us of some of the things that are still to happen, in her insightful post Acerca do que (ainda) falta ao património - or Luís Raposo - one of the few museum professionals in Portugal who regularly share their views publicly, his latest opinion article concerning the opening of the new Coaches Museum and future plans for museums in Lisbon’s Belem area.

So, we can’t complain that we haven’t already got truly valuable feedback – both from insiders and outsiders - which can help build strategies, correct mistakes, make decisions, register trends, understand changes and developments. Why don´t decision makers and those directly responsible for museum management act on it? What´s stopping us, what kind of barriers are we dealing with? Why are we going after more studies, new studies, if we haven’t done anything yet about the things we already know? Why existing knowledge seems to have no impact whatsoever on museum management and practices?

Here’s my attempt to identify some reasons:

It might be because, despite politically correct statements that museums are at the service of society, they are rather at the service of those who manage them. People – those who come and those who don’t come – and their interests and needs are actually not our principal concern. Objects are and it’s enough that they look beautiful for those who know how to appreciate them.

It might be because in this field we work with very short-term plans, which follow the electoral circles and which may easily be abandoned, with no further explanation or responsibilities taken. Thus, big and small issues remain and their discussion is perpetuated without brining any concrete developments.

Finally, it might be because we tend to settle for what’s “good enough”. We know what the problems are, but there comes a moment when we cannot insist anymore: either because we can’t get our arguments across or because we feel that we cannot expect or demand more from other people. Only that “good enough” is not good enough and the argument of “one step at a time” doesn’t always take us as far as we should go. In fact, it often keeps us just where we are.

More on this blog

Why things aren’t happening?

What or who is the barrier?

Barcelona: one conference,two museums putting it to the test

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”?

"Either...or" or simply "and"?

Nicholas Penny, National Gallery director (photo taken from the Guardian) 

Two museum directors in London announced this month that they will be stepping down as soon as their successors are appointed: first, Sandy Nairne from the National Portrait Gallery and then Nicholas Penny from the National Gallery. Two museum directors who are thought to have been very successful in this job.

Although neither has specified some special professional reason for stepping down (at least, my Google search hasn´t brought something up), Guardian´s Jonathan Jones believes the reason might be the increasing pressure on London museum directors due to populist expectations, a media assumption that every exhibition must be a hit and a political belief that galleries should provide not just well-run collections, but entertainment and education for everyone. And he states:

“(…) Are we about to see a new technocrat generation of museum bosses who keep their heads down, put PR first and do all they can to meet goals defined by politicians and the press? (…) That kind of pressure doesn't exactly leave much room to experiment. Museums cannot just be machines for entertaining us. They should have a quieter side where the art comes first, the crowds second and a scholarly side that reveres someone like Penny. This looks depressingly like the end of individuality in the museum world.” (read the article)

It´s getting harder and harder for me to understand why museums are still and constantly faced with dichotomies: objects or people; scholars or technocrats; quietness and reverence or publicity and accessibility. Does it have to be like that? Isn´t it possible to strike a balance? Can´t they be ‘AND’?

When reading Elaine Heumann Gurian´s ”Civilizing the museum” a couple of years ago, I remember experiencing a great sense of relief when reaching the chapter “The importance of ‘and’”. She was commenting on the American Association of Museums report Excellence and Equity (a report that was distributed to each and every museum studies student in 1993 at UCL, where I was studying). One reads:

“(...) This report made a concerted attempt to accept the two major ideas proposed by factions within the field – equity and excellence – as equal and without priority.” Further down: “(...) for the museum field to go forward, we must do more than make political peace by linking words. We must believe in what we have written, namely that complex organizations must and should espouse the coexistance of more than one primary mission.” And also: “It has occurred to me that perhaps my whole career was metaphorically about ‘and’.”  

We must believe in what we have written, that´s one point. And the other point is probably that we must go ahead and do what we write or talk about. Because it´s not impossible to do it. Who´s the best person for the job? Can it be one person only? Would teams which involve professionals with different sensibilities manage to reach multiple objectives in a more balanced way? Are we trying to set up this kind of teams? Is everyone heard equally?

“Publicity and accessibility are everything”, Jonathan Jones writes in a negatively critical tone in his article. Publicity might not be everything, but accessibility certainly is. Museums are for anyone who might be interested in them, but not all people approach their contents with the same level of knowledge or interest and with the same kind of needs. It´s a hard job, indeed, but, should museums wish to fulfill their mission, they need to have a quieter side and they need to have a celebration side. They need to please those who know and they need to enchant those who don´t know as much or who know nothing. It was as early as 1853 that British naturalist Edward Forbes wrote: “Curators may be prodigies of learning and yet unfit for their posts if they don´t know anything about pedagogy, if they are not equipped to teach people who know nothing.” Those people matter too. Those people might matter even more.

As I write about these dichotomies, one more need emerges for me as a professional, but as a citizen too. I would like to hear the voices of those responsible for managing our museums (and cultural organizations in general) regarding these issues. I would like to hear clear statements, I woud like to feel there is a vision behind them. I would like to know on what kind of plan I may base my criticism. Jonathan Jones is concerned about technocrats who keep their heads down, I am concerned about directors (museum, theatre, orchestra, library directors) who keep their mouths shut. I was in a debate some time ago where someone said “Fortunately, I was never asked to take up positions of directorship and that means I have always been able to say what I think.” Is this fortunate? Isn´t it profoundly worrying?

There is no doubt that there is a great difficulty in dealing with managers or directors with an opinion. In this kind of democracy of ours, someone who takes a certain position is expected to show a kind of ‘loyalty’ that stops him/her from publicly sharing their views (especially when contrary to a government´s positions). I am not defending that each and every issue, each and every disagreement, should be dealt with in public. Nevertheless, there are issues that concern us all. When the State appoints certain people to certain positions, I would like to know what´s expected of them. Once those certain people accept the job, I would like to know what they aim to do and how they plan to go about reaching the objectives. And if they feel that they are not given the conditions to do their job well or if they don´t feel they are up to what´s expected of them, I wish to know about that too. When two museum directors (in London or elsewhere) announce within two weeks from each other that they are leaving, I would like to understand why. When other museum directors (in London or elswhere), keep on staying despite the state of the affairs, I would also like to understand what´s keeping them.

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.

Guest post: "Artistic vision and economic patronage", by Filiz Ova-Karaoglu (Turkey)

When I first met Filiz and heard her presenting her work, I remember I smiled. Although quiet and rather reserved, she seemed to be bursting with ideas and looked like if she didn´t know how to deal with them all, what to do about them. In this post she writes about her work at the Is Sanat Concert Hall, funded by the Is Sanat Bank. Balances are not easy to maintain, especially at times like this, but Filiz is creating a path, constantly learning, constantly experimenting, clear about her goals. mv 

Buika Symphonic on 24 May 2013 (Photo: Ilgın Yanmaz)

Financial difficulties in cultural institutions are an ever-present topic in our business. Especially in countries where cultural philanthropy is still a matter of private institutions mostly, with scarcely any support from the government. Even the most successful pioneers of the art profession are not always economically eloquent. We often tend to forget we run a business, even though, as nonprofit organizations, we need to keep our institutions moving. Just recently we witnessed a forerunner in the culture and arts scene of Turkey almost losing their building due to a big hole of depths. Saved by their founders – a large family corporation – at the last minute before losing a wonderful building, the question being how much involvement economic institutions should have in the culture and arts: should they remain as the provider or directly interfere into our work?

The increasing involvement of corporations directly into the cultural institutions doesn’t seem so far-fetched. No longer acting as the sponsor, kept as a distant friend invited to join the party, but as an essential part of our strategic planning and decision-making.  In an environment of a booming cultural industry with huge investments in different art genres, from modern art galleries to museums, multi-stage concert and performance spaces to arenas, the question is if arts professionals have enough know-how in economic, sociological and marketing issues? Do we need to?

Yes, indeed. I see a model where the direct involvement into the economic and marketing strategies is a vital point and a great advantage. Being sponsored by a large corporation, and at the same time being part of their internal structure, does bring along a stable sustainable structure of marketing and communication strategies that strengthen and allow to adapt to the changing environment, sociologically, strategically and economically. Although this may include a dependency on certain corporation doctrines and expectations, I think we can make a compromise as long as our artistic wok can flow freely. These doctrines do not have to be restrictive necessarily. There are excellent examples, such as the successfully delivered International Istanbul Biennial which, no doubt, acts among the most courageous, most innovative and forerunning in its field at an international level. Already addressing a delicate socio-cultural topic, especially the last edition has faced a very difficult socio-political reality and Zeitgeist in Turkey.

Still I would separate a mere sponsoring relationship from an interacting business relationship. I would see the sponsoring kind as an external support into an existing artistic viewpoint, whereas within an interacting business relationship a coherent artistic vision is developed. By no means should this be based on any kind of commercial success related principals, although we have to oversee our feasibility. Since it takes time and patience, especially if the artistic institution is build up at a time and within an environment that has not yet proven itself as a proper ground for anything, but a profitable space for a business center. A new initiative, with no guarantee of success, needs patience but above all a vision based on a solid mission. Although we can not record very large numbers, luckily there are a few examples in different fields, such as art galleries, museums and performance spaces. 

L.A. Dance Project, 10 May 2013 (Photo: Ilgın Yanmaz)

Adopting a long-term vision based on principles of sustainability results in a stable institution that is rooted on a solid commercial and artistic ground. If this could be combined to go hand in hand with creativity and artistic freedom, we would be in a perfect world of artistic Utopia. But still, there are working models. Is Sanat was founded in 2000 as a concert space that would gather different culture and arts genres under one roof. Since then, it has hosted a large variety of artistic genres, from classical music to jazz, world music, children’s activities, poetry recitals, traditional Turkish music, pop, acoustic rock concerts, a series for young emerging artists and more. The space also includes an Art Gallery hosting four retrospective exhibitions each year. As a forerunner in an area, which has become one of the most popular business and shopping districts in the city, with emerging new arts institutions and a variety of cultural events, it remains the only institution of its kind in many ways until today.

Based on certain principals that were set out during the foundation of our institution, in coherence with our patron’s doctrines of sustainability and long livedness, being the artistic team, we develop a package, an artistic ‘cocoon’ around these principles, which we offer our patrons as a suggestion, which they are kind enough to accept. In return we develop the right strategies for our ‘artistic cocoon’ including marketing, communication. It is a mutual interacting, a model of giving and taking from each other. In this respect, openness to change is an important factor of our work. We re-invented ourselves in many ways during the years. Witnessing the changing demography of our audiences led us to include new genres into our program, such as children’s theatre, a Rising Stars series or acoustic Rock concerts, which proved successful after a certain period of time. But again, they needed time to evolve and set. Together we embrace a changing artistic, economic and social environment year after year. Staying true to our principals we evolve and grow. Next year Is Sanat is celebrating its 15^th year within this model of collaboration. As we are constantly evolving, we never know if this will not change. But for us it has proven successful for the last 14 years and we can only hope that there are many years to come.

Note:

When reviewing this article, my dear colleague and friend Maria, who kindly asked me to write for her blog, rightfully asked: “If we as arts professionals need to gain interest and know-how in economics, do the corporations which participate into our work need to know about art?” I would argue that an understanding of the artistic content is required for sure. But if communicated thoroughly and correctly by the artistic team, this should not cause a problem. As mentioned above, as our artistic work has  flown freely and we have been working around the artistic concept, in our case we have witnessed that most of our strategies work well. It has not been flawless and within the years we have faced obstacles in understanding each other. After 14 years, however, we have grown into a unity.

Filiz Ova-Karaoglu is the artistic director of Is Sanat Concert Hall. Is Sanat is a 800 capacity concert and performance hall hosting a 7-month seasonal program providing a wide range of performances, from classical music to jazz, world music, Turkish music, modern dance, children activities and many more. Working as Is Sanat’s Assistant Director since 2008, Filiz Ova-Karaoglu was appointed Artistic Director in January 2013. She holds an M.A. in Art History and American Studies from Eberhard Karls University Tubingen, where she continues to pursue her Ph.D. studies. She is currently also a Summer Fellow at the DeVos institute of Arts Management at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

So that they may live happily ever after

I remember feeling a bit surprised when I read the news about the collaboration of the Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga (MNAA) and the agency Everything is New in the production of the Prado exhibition in Portugal. Little after the Joana Vasconcelos exhibition at the Palácio Nacional da Ajuda and despite the issues this first partnership had raised (perhaps not publicly and formally, but certainly among colleagues), here’s another partnership of the Portuguese Government (and of a national museum) with the same partner. From what I read in the newspapers, Everything is New funded the production of the exhibition with €380.000. The income from tickets and other sales up to this amount will be 100% for Everything is New; above that, it will be divided equally between the agency and the MNAA.

I do believe in these public-private partnerships and I think they will become more and more frequent. Apart from that, in the specific case of Everything is New, a particularly liked reading the statement of the director, Álvaro Covões, last November, about the results of the Eurobarometer regarding the cultural participation of the Portuguese. At a time when the majority of the reactions in the sector blamed the Portuguese for their ignorance, lack of interest and culture, Covões said that the results of the study did not scare him and that they were, on the contrary, an opportunity and a social responsibility. I also think the same.

When last week I entered the MNAA, one of the first things I saw was an acrylic stand with leaflets: of the temporary exhibition of Prado in Portugal; of the Beyonce concert; and of the Cirque du Soleil show “Dralion”. Thus, I understood that this was Everything is New´s publicity stand. This mixed offer made me smile. To put side by side Rubens´, Brueghel´s, Lorrain´s nordic landscapes and Beyonce, at the Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, may be a way of challenging our prejudices regarding “high” and “low” culture, of acknowledging that one who likes the former may also enjoy the latter and that cultural participation varies and does not only occur within moulds pre-defined by the professionals of the sector. I know that their coexistence on the acrylic stand was simply the result of benefits given to Everything is New in return for their investment and not a conscious attempt to challenge our notions of “culture” and “art”. Even though, it’s a collateral result of this partnership, a positive one, in my opinion.

Nevertheless, after the initial smile, I started having doubts. And this is because, the more I look at the details of the communication of this partnership, the more I feel that I did not visit MNAA’s new exhibition, but rather Everything is New´s exhibition at the MNAA. Details? Maybe yes, maybe not.

The exhibition leaflet is a neutral leaflet. ‘Neutral’ in the sense that it does not identify, as it should, the promoter, the organization that presents the exhibition and invites us to visit (this usually happens with the inclusion of its logo at a visible spot). In the case of the MNAA and the rest of the national museums, this is nothing new. These organizations have been condemned to discretion, they may not appear as the big promoters of their own initiatives, their logo being placed in the footer of the promotional materials, mandatorily preceded by those (two in this case) of their tutelage and at the same level as the logos of the supporters. In the promotional materials, the reference to national museums is first of all a reference to the venue – just the venue – of an exhibition. What’s new in the leaflet of this exhibition at the MNAA is that the museum is actually identified as “the venue”. It’s not just an interpretation of the way the information is referred, but there is the actual designation “Location” and not “Address”, as one would expect. Details? Maybe yes, maybe not.

The discreet position of the MNAA within this partnership is also confirmed online. When clicking on the image of this temporary exhibition on the museum website, we are taken to a page with just three links: 1. Press release + info (where we find information just for the press); Promotional video (on the MNAA You Tube channel and with the title “Nordic Landscape from the Museo del Prado” and not “Rubens, Brueghel, Lorrain”, which is the formal title of the exhibition – rather deceiving, but for a good cause, I suppose, since these names are attractive, although not that dominant in the exhibition, as the title suggests); 3. Tickets and information (we are taken to the exhibition’s specific website – Why does this exhibition have a specific website? Why can´t we find all relevant information on MNAA’s website?). Details? Maybe yes, maybe not.

Image taken from the website Portugal Confidential

What am I trying to say? One of the things I’ve learned, and learned well, in this profession is that everything, ‘everything’, communicates: what we say and what we don’t say; and we do and what we don’t do. What is being communicated to me, when looking at some promotional materials and when reading the news, is that Everything is New is the agent that made this exhibition possible and that, for this reason, it may benefit (or even demand?) from special conditions in its presentation and representation.

“But what is really bothering you?”, a friend insisted.

What bothers me really is that partnerships like this one are, in fact, seen as some kind of favour on behalf of those who have got the money and not as true partnerships, counting with the contribution of both sides (more than two, in this case). Everythings is New invested in this exhibition, and before in the Joana Vasconcelos exhibition, a significant amount of money which undoubtedly made it possible for the project to go ahead. It invested not because it felt sorry for the limited conditions national museums are operating in, but because it could gain from it, both in financial terms, but also in terms of prestige, in this field that is not - yet – its own. This is why it did not invest in any exhibition, but in an exhibition that resulted from the partnership between the MNAA and the Prado. On the other hand, the MNAA did not just receive. It also contributed in the production of this exhibition. It contributed with its space, it contributed with the whole infrastructure, it contributed with its expertise and it contributed with its prestige. This exhibition wouldn’t have been the same thing if this museum was not involved. Further more, how much did the insurance of the paintings cost, for example, totally supported by Lusitânia? Or the edition of the catalogue, offered by the Casa de Imprensa? This is a true partnership and it should be seen as a win-win situation and not as a risk generously and unilaterally taken by Everything is New. This exhibition wouldn’t have happened just with the €380.000 the agency invested, isn’t it true?

Image taken from the site Museus de Portugal

But even before that, what bothers me really, and mainly, is that the government went ahead with this new partnership with Everything is New without discussing, clarifying and evaluating the issues raised by the Joana Vasconcelos exhibition at the Palácio da Ajuda. Issues related to the handing over of the space to the partner / funder; with the impact on the Palace´s own collection and the building itself, due to decisions / impositions that disregarded the advice given by the museum staff; with the conditions of hiring and preparing the exhibition staff. I am not able to say if these issues were right to be raised; I also haven’t got concrete information on the conditions of the partnership, although I searched for them.

The Government has got responsibilties and the obligation to be transparent when entering this kind of partnerships. We, the professionals of the sector, have also got responsiblities and the obligation to demand transparency and to intervene decisevely, which is something more than talking among colleagues and commenting on Facebook. Public-private partnerships are fundamental. What is also fundamental, though, is that the conditions of these partnerships are known to the public, so that we are not left with that uncomfortable feeling – by interpreting signs, conversations, rumours and the news in the newspapers – that the national museums are handed over to external agents and used simply as stages. Details? Certainly not.