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.”

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.

What Maria Matos means to me (or, why did I sign the petition)

On December 17, 2017, the newspaper Público published an interview with the Councilor of Culture of Lisbon, Catarina Vaz Pinto, where it was announced that "[the theatre] Maria Matos (MM) will have a very different programming model, with longer running periods and a greater concern in attracting audiences, in order to be profitable". The news was surprising to me, to say the least. I would say more, I remember that, as I read, I felt a kind of physical pain.

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.

Diplomatic silences

Nicola Sturgeon, Scottish First Minister

As the the Web Summit was coming to a close in Lisbon, a day after the results of the American elections became known, the Municipality of Lisbon placed some outdoors that read: “In the free world you can still find a city to live, invest and build your future, making brigdes [sic], not walls. We call it Lisbon”. The outdoors were classified as “anti-Trump” by the opposition, which preferred to think that this was “an abusive interpretation and that [the mayor’s] intention was not to disrespect the democratic choice of the American people, it was not a demonstration of ideological arrogance, it was not an opportunistic precipitation as a result of becoming dazzled with the international attention." In short, the opposition asked for explanations (read the article).

Who are you?

I hold strong impressions from the walls of the underground in London (and other cities), a fundamental platform for one to keep up-to-date with the city’s cultural offer. Now, imagine what would happen if all those cultural organizations, competing among themselves and with other entities for people’s attention, did not consider carefully their visual identity so that they would stand out immediately and make a connection both with interested and especially distracted individuals.

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).

"Ganesh versus the Third Reich" and the question that was left for next time

Photo: Jeff Busby

It’s rare these days a play that stays with us. A play that occupies our thoughts for hours and days after leaving the theatre. A play we wish to discuss with others. A play we wish to see again, looking for more, looking for everything we know we missed the first time. “Ganesh versus the Third Reich”, by the Australian Back to Back Theatre (presented at Culturgest on 14 and 15 May), is a play that did this for me.

To take 'no' for an answer

The Acropolis Museum (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

When I was last at the Acropolis Museum and while taking some photos in the sculptures gallery, I was approached by a guard who kindly informed me that I couldn´t take photos in that room and also quickly informed me of the  areas where I could take photos. No explanation was given to me as to why that distinction was made. When a bit later I took a photo of a label (not an exhibit, a label), another guard saw me and made sure to inform her colleagues that I should be watched. She also followed my every step...

All this being very uncomfortable for me – and, I am sure, for the guards too -, I took the opportunity of questioning an archaeologist who was in the room in order to answer visitors’ questions. She explained to me that some of the statues preserve their original colours, that flash could be harmful, and that, as it’s not possible for the guards to control the use of flash, the museum thought better to totally prohibit photography. I thought that I took her by surprise when I asked why the museum doesn’t actually assume its educational role and explain to visitors why flash mustn’t be used, instead of totally prohibiting photography in certain rooms (most digital cameras don’t need flash) and creating such an ambiguous policy regarding photography in the museum.

It was not something I invented at that moment. It occurred to me that, a couple of years ago, in the Workt by Hand exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum – composed of extremely fragile quilts, made in the last two centuries - the museum had chosen not to show the objects behind glass or surrounded by rope and at a distance. So, when entering the room, the visitor was asked to 

Brooklyn Museum (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

Some people might be thinking that this is a different culture, a more respectful one, but it is not the case. The Brooklyn Museum opens its doors to all sorts of visitors, with and without the habit of visiting museums, with and without specific knowledge regarding the objects and their preservation. It assumes its educational role, though, and doesn´t simply expect visitors to take ‘no’ for an answer, just because the museum said so, without further explanation.

Little after my visit to the Acropolis Museum, I read an article in the Guardian about the fundamental role of ushers in theatres, especially regarding disruptive audiences. In the article, we are given the example of Stratford East Theatre, where ushers and front-of-house staff are trained to deal with such situations. And more: at a theatre which has “a particularly high number of first-time theatregoers, who sometimes need to be helped to understand what effect their behaviour is having, not just on other audience members but also on ushers and cast members”, the management chooses to invite them back “for backstage and front-of-house tours and maybe even to meet staff and casts, so that they can understand more about how a theatre works and how their behaviour impacts others”.

I believe it is part of the educational role of cultural institutions to help people better understand the details of the work that is being undertaken, but also their own role – the spectators’ and visitors’ role – so that it may be carried out in appropriate conditions for everyone involved. I believe it can be much more effective than simply saying ‘no’ to a certain behaviour or asking people to leave and it can also make them feel co-owners of and co-responsible for that work.


More on this blog:

Say click!
Please define danger

The educational dimension

Last October, during the intermission of a performance of Brahms' “Requiem” by the Saint Louis Symphony, twenty three protesters sitting in various parts of the auditorium stood up and sang “Requiem for Mike Brown” (the black unarmed youth that was shot by a policeman in Ferguson). Some members of the audience were shocked, others applauded, the same happened with the musicians on stage. Noone interrupted the protesters, noone called the police. Maybe because what happened made sense, at that place, at that time, in that specific context. Music being an integral part of protest in Ferguson, this, acoording to one of the organizers, was an attempt to “speak to a segment of the population that has the luxury of being comfortable. You have to make a choice for just staying in your comfort zones or will you speak out for something that’s important? It’s not all right to just ignore it”. (read full article)

The recent killings of black people by police in different US cities have provoked an intense soul searching among cultural institutions in that country. In a recent joint statement from museum bloggers and other culture professionals regarding Ferguson and related events, one reads:

“The recent series of events, from Ferguson to Cleveland and New York, have created a watershed moment. Things must change. New laws and policies will help, but any movement toward greater cultural and racial understanding and communication must be supported by our country’s cultural and educational infrastructure. Museums are a part of this educational and cultural network. What should be our role(s)? (...) Where do museums fit in? Some might say that only museums with specific African American collections have a role, or perhaps only museums situated in the communities where these events have occurred. As mediators of culture, all museums should commit to identifying how they can connect to relevant contemporary issues irrespective of collection, focus, or mission. (...) As of now, only the Association of African American Museums has issued a formal statement about the larger issues related to Ferguson, Cleveland and Staten Island. We believe that the silence of other museum organizations sends a message that these issues are the concern only of African Americans and African American Museums. We know that this is not the case.”

Last August, serious controversy involved the decision of Tricycle Theatre not to host the UK Jewish Film Festival, for the first time in eight years. The reason was that the festival received support from the Israeli Embassy in London and, given the ongoing assault on Gaza at the time, the Board felt it was “inappropriate to accept financial support from any government agency involved”. They offered to provide alternative funding, but the Festival did not accept (read full article). The conflict in Gaza was also the reason why participating artists in this year’s São Paulo Bienal (later supported by the bienal curators) called on the organizers to return funding from the Israeli Conusulate. Negotiations resulted in the removal of the conusulate logo from the general sponsors and its association only to the Israeli artists that had received that specific financial support (read full report).

We may agree or disagree with the decisions taken by these organizations. But the questioning of the role of cultural institutions in today’s society, especially their educational role, must be permanent, constant. Just like Rebecca Herz, I believe that they shouldn´t act irrespective of their mission (as it is suggested in the above mentioned statement of the US museum bloggers), but any museum collection or theatre /orchestra / festival programme can have a connection to contemporary life and help shape the kind of society we need or dream of. As the work of many contemporary artists is a response to contemporary life issues, it is not unusual to find this kind of connections, and the fertile thinking associated to them, in the programming of theatres, companies or galleries (the Maria Matos Theatre, the Gulbenkian Programme Next Future or the alkantara festival are the first to come to mind, among the organizations whose programming I follow in Portugal, but there are others). Museums or orchestras presenting works that are not contempoarary are not used to linking their collections or concerts to contemporary life though or, if they do, it does not become obvious to me. Quite often I find myself thinking “What is the point of this exhibition or concert?”, “Why is this relevant?”, “How does this connect to contemporary portuguese society and its diversity?” (the inspiring work of the Orchestra of the Age of the Enlightenment comes to mind once again...)

This brings me once again to a recurring issue on this blog: accountability and responsibility. I don´t see cultural institutions as islands, cut off from what is happening around them. I believe they should make it clear for people how what they have to say or show can be relevant to them and a way of finding meaning; they should share their vision and objectives publicly and take responsibility for fulfilling them; they should be a public forum, where people can find comfort, but also the necessary discomfort. They clearly have an educational role (in the sense of providing what the Ancient Greeks called “paideia”), one that I wouldn´t necessarily make depend on what happens (or doesn’t happen) at school or at home and one that doesn’t firstly depend on an education department, but on the director him/herself.

Two museums directors and a curator will be with us next Tuesday, 16 December, at the Gulbenkian Foundation conference “What places for education? The educational dimension of cultural institutions” (more information). Charles Esche (Director of Van Abbemuseum and one of the curators of this year’s São Paulo Bienal), David Fleming (Director of National Musems Liverpool and President of the International Federation of Human Rights Museums) and Delfim Sardo (Curator, University Professor and Essayist) will challenge us to think on our responsibilities and practices in the current social and political context.

Note: For those who cannot be in Lisbon, the session will be livestreamed from 10am Lisbon time. The link for the livestream as well as a number of papers, posts, interviews in english may be found on the conference webpage (in “Oradores” and in "+Info")

More readings :

Jean-François Chougnet, Le MuCEM ne doit pas devenir un musée pour touristes

Laura C. Mallonee, A scramble to save protest art, from Ferguson to Hong Kong

Maddy Costa, Can a relationship with theatre change people’s relationship to society?

Rebecca Herz, Should museums respond to the grand jury verdicts in Ferguson and NewYork City?

Sunny Hundal and Nock Cohen, Was the Tricycle Theatre right to ask the UK Jewish FilmFestival to ‘reconsider’ its funding?

More on this blog:

Paideia: where education and culture meet

Broken clay pots

Silent and apolitical?

Preserving for what?

“Either...or” or simply “and”?

Comfort and disturbance

Being ‘just’

Crise oblige? (ii)Programming challenges

The long distance between California and Jerusalem

That´s advertising

What is usually understood as “advertising” among cultural institutions is an ad in a newspaper or a magazine based on an exhibition or performance poster and informing on what – where -  when. Sometimes, this concept is transported into a TV spot, where the poster gets to have some kind of “animation”, using the image and letters of the poster, and where the information on what – where – when is also transmitted orally. In other words, facts.

Last year, I saw on You Tube the advertising spot of an exhibition at the Czech National Museum in Prague and it got me thinking. It related to the 2008 exhibition of the original document of the “Munich agreement”, which had been signed 70 years earlier, in 1938. This was an agreement between Britain, Germany, Italy and France which allowed for Czechoslovakia’s German-speaking territories to be sliced off and handed to Hitler.  

This was definitely not the usual what - where – when tv spot. This was a museum transmitting a message and addressing an invitation with a clear knowledge of the social-political-cultural context in which it operates and with a sense of humour. Short, intriguing and rather bold, considering what museums in general have got us used to. It speaks to the citizens of the Czech Republic and to the rest of us, although no words are needed.

More recently, I was very pleasantly surprised with a “Made in Portugal” ad. The 3rd edition of the Montemor-o-Novo Theatre Festival was organized by the Municipality of Montemor-o-Novo together with a number of local theatre groups, in spite of the financial difficulties felt in the cultural sector, presented all over the town and with the objective – among others - to involve the local population, independent of age, education, previous knowledge or habits of attending theatre performances.

The sense of humour in this spot won my heart once again. The second thing that came to mind was how true it felt, considering the festival´s mission and objective, especially the concern to involve the local community, which becomes the protagonist.

The third example I would like to discuss is also “Made in Portugal” and it´s more than an ad, it´s what one may call a campaign. “Maria & Luiz” is the joint effort of Lisbon´s two municipal theatres (Maria Matos and São Luiz) to work together in forging a relationship with people, through the creation of a card that costs €10 to purchase and offers 50% discount for a year. The campaign is made of seven short films (with english subtitles).

Seven short films, seven stories of romance, vanguarde, drama, music, expression, charm, phantasy. The ingredients of the the everyday life of very diverse people reflected back to us once we find ourselves in a theatre room.

The objective of advertising is to build messages that may influence attitudes towards a product or an idea. Now that I put the three examples together, I realize that one thing they have in common, apart from a sense of humour, is that they are centred on the people they wish to communicate with. Not facts, people. The story is not just the document or the festival or the discount card; the story is not told by the curator, the artist or the manager. Common people become the protagonists and narrators. Common people is what cultural institutions are about. This is the idea I see behind the concept, this is the message. Being part of a sector that is used to communicating with “its own” – with those who are already part, with those who “understand” – I am happy to see that some of us have chosen a different way, a different relationship.

More on this blog

What can make the difference?

Not to be missed? Mmm.... why?

Old friends, new friends

Seattle Symphony Orchestra with Sir Mix-a-Lot.

Some cultural organizations are interested in evaluating their programming and the ways they package and prmote it, aiming at diversifying their audiences. On the one hand, this is a necessary step towards accomplishing their mission. On the other hand, it is also a question of survival: how long will they exist for if they don´t manage to renew their relationship with people?

The reconquest

Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts, Washington DC (Photo: bigbirdz on Flickr)

In Ancient Greece, drama was part of what, nowadays, one would call pop or mass culture. Ancient Greeks would fill their theatres in the thousands. They would bring food with them, as they would spend the whole day at the amphitheatre. They would eat during performances and they would throw food or shout at the actors if they didn´t like what was being presented. They would also intervene, ask questions or express opinions regarding the plot.

Meet Rosa Shaw

Rosa Shaw (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

Meet Rosa Shaw. She’s the first person to greet us when we enter the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. She’s one of the memorial’s guards and one of the institution’s faces. She’s polite, she has a good sense of humour, she’s helpful. If someone looks lost or confused, she doesn’t wait for them to ask for help, she approaches and tries to see if she can be of assistance. The uniform could cause some inhibition to the visitors - a permanent concern among those of us working in the communications field – but, looking at Rosa and the way she does her job, it becomes clear that, more than a question of aspect, it’s a question of attitude.

Rosa makes me think of many guards I have encountered in museums. People who look terribly bored and tired; or people who avoid eye contact when we enter a room and then follow us closely, although we are the only visitor in that room; or people who might be loudly discussing family or union problems, paying no attention to visitors. Guards of this kind make me think of how much more interesting their job could be, and how big the benefit for the museum or the cultural institution they serve, if they were given appropriate training and different responsibilities - more responsibilities - than just sitting on a chair or standing at a corner, looking stern and bored, having as little interaction with visitors as possible.

Guards at the Brooklyn Museum (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

I am saying this, because I’ve also had other kinds of experiences. A couple of years ago, I joined a guided tour to the Pastrana Tapestries exhibition at the National Museum of Ancient Art in Lisbon. As soon as the tour was over and as I was heading for the exit, I overheard a guard having a conversation with two ladies, explaining everything one needed to know about those works of art, but with an enthusiasm and commitment that equaled those of the education department staff. And in a language that was much more accessible than that of the texts on the panels. More recently, while visiting the El Anatsui exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum, I overheard two guards exchanging views regarding one of the works of art on display. It was a pleasure listening to them. Later on, one of them greeted a small group of visitors and offered to take their photo in front of one of the works, so that they could all be in it. The whole atmosphere was light and friendly and informal, I felt that it made such a big difference.

Museum guards might look silent and stern, even threatening some times, but they have eyes and feelings and opinions regarding the works that surround them. The Washington Post published a very interesting piece on Washington museum guards a few weeks ago (read here), where they would talk about their favourite work of art and the reasons why it is their favourite. One of them also mentioned how working in a museum awakened her interest in art and consequently made her look at all things in a different way. Reading their interviews made me think of how much I would have enjoyed having a direct conversation with them, both as a visitor and a professional.

Front-of-house staff in cultural institutions (whether guards, ushers or box office assistants) are some of the most important people in the team, in terms of institutional marketing. They are the face, they are the voice, they are the attitude. They are the ears too, as they get closer to the visitors/audiences than most of the administrative staff ever get. Front-of-house staff have a decisive role in the shaping of the quality of the whole experience of visiting a cultural institution. A disappointing exhibition or a performance that turned out to be a disaster will not make people keep away for ever; people take a risk and know that it might not fulfill their expectations. On the other hand, if someone is not well treated, if they come across staff who are impolite or in a bad mood, who lack information, who are unhelpful or show that they don’t care, this might definitely determine if someone will come back or not. Even when we have to make a choice between two interesting exhibitions or two interesting shows, it’s very probable that customer care, the place where we feel that we are better treated, will make all the difference in our decision.

Despite their strategic position and role, though, front-of-house staff get to be very neglected by management; underestimated too. They are not given the appropriate training in public relations and customer care; they are not given information about what it is that they are guarding or selling or taking people to their seats to see; quite often, they are not even given important information about what’s going on in the institution, in terms of programming or timetables or prices/discounts or other practical information the public might be looking for (have you ever experienced the discomfort and embarrassment of a Front-of-House member of staff who can’t answer a logical question or, worse, who is informed by a visitor on what is happening in the institution he/she is working for?); they feel frustrated by the fact that their opinion is not taken into consideration, even when it concerns visitor opinions or comments which they are simply passing on, as they are the ones who hear or receive them.

Front-of-house staff don’t ‘just’ guard or ‘just’ sell or ‘just’ answer the phone or ‘just’ take people to their seats. They are a valuable part of the team, they are the most visible part. They are the ones that welcome people in, talk to them, promote the institution – not only its contents but also its vision and principles. It seems only too obvious and natural to me that they would be given the tools to do their work and to do it well. Rosa seems to be pleased in doing her job. And it’s  certainly a pleasure to watch her doing it.

Don´t shush me!

Photo taken from Culture 24 (© Courtesy Wallace Collection)

Back in 2003, the Royal Academy hosted an exhibition on the Aztecs. River, a two-year-old child, exclaimed “Monster! Monster!” when he saw the statue of the Eagle Man. The guard immediately asked the family to leave, considering that the child was misbehaving.  The mother, Dea Birkett, was a journalist and a few days later she was writing in the Guardian an article entitled Travelling with kids, questioning: “If we curtail their unfiltered attraction to art as a toddler, how can we demand they appreciate it aged 20? I hope my children don't misbehave. But shrieking with joy at a statue doesn't seem, to me, something to frown upon. I would have been much more disturbed if he'd shown no response at all. But perhaps you were at the Aztecs, too, and glad when that loud child left. Perhaps I've spent too long surrounded by shouting kids to appreciate how irritating they can be? What do you think? Should River stay or should he go...?”. The incident was widely discussed at the time and Dea Birkett founded Kids in Museums, a charity dedicated to making museums more child and family frienldy. Kids in Museums has just celebrated its 10^th anniversary at... the Royal Academy! The museum´s Head of Learning, Beth Schneider, siezed the opportunity and wrote a long article for the Guardian describing all the steps taken in the last ten years to make the museum more welcoming for families and especially for younger visitors.

Tate Modern came under fire for not putting an end to the BP sponsorship after the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 (read here and here). Initiatives like Liberate Tate, Art not Oil and Platform have not let the matter die out, not only in relation to the Tate, but to all british cultural institutions accepting sponsorship from the oil company, including the National Portrait Gallery, the Royal Opera House and the British Museum. Last year, these institutions renewed their sponsorship agreements, considering that the support of BP to culture and the arts has been consistent and substantial and there´s no reason to renounce it because of one major incident. Nevertheless, the British Museum demonstrated total openess to criticism and gave it space on its own premises. Last November a theatre flashmob, organized by the Reclaim Shakespeare Company, took place in the museum´s Great Court, protesting against BP sponsorship of the Shakespeare exhibition, showing at the museum. A museum press officer reaffirmed the institution´s gratitude for BP´s continuous commitment and, at the same time, recognized Reclaim Shakespeare Company´s right to protest, claiming that there were no ill feelings (read here).

When Woolly Mammoth theatre announced an encore run of Mike Daisey´s The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs, it was heavily criticised by many. The monologue dealt with and denounced the corporate practices of Apple and Foxconn, Apple's supplier in China, but some time after it premiered, Mike Daisey was accused of fabricating some facts. He admitted it, publicly apologised and removed all contested material. Woolly Mammoth Theater remained firm in its decision for a take 2 of the performance and its long-standing collaboration with Mike Daisey. Instead of avoiding the controversy, it actually used it to promote the show, announcing it as “the most notorious and controversial play of the decade”. It promoted a very healthy dialogue with both supporters and critics on its facebook page, and actually posted negative reviews, feeding the conversation. On the last day of the show, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniac, who hadn´t escaped Mike Daisey´s criticism in the play, was at the theathe for an after-show talk with the playwright and the audience.

Mike Daisey in The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs (Photo: Sara Krulwich/The New York Times)

What´s the common thread in these three stories? That the cultural institutions involved didn´t bury their heads in the ground, didn´t pretend they didn´t notice, didn´t ignore people´s voices. People were heard. Not in the sense “the client is always right”. Actually, in two of the three cases here presented there was no change in the decision. But there was an understanding that there is another side, people with convictions, expectations and needs. They are not there to unconditionally adore us – ‘us’, cultural institutions. They´re there to question, to criticise, to demand, and also to guide us. Because they care. And because we care too, we don´t hide away. We engage in the dialogue, we promote it, we feed it. We invite them to get involved in what we are doing. We become part of their lives. And we get their support.

Suggested reading:

Kids in Museums 10th anniversary manifesto

The difference between "more" and "diverse"

Before talking about the news that come from the other side of the Atlantic, I would like to state once again my conviction that free entries may multiply visits (which is something also desirable), but cannot, on their own, diversify the audiences of cultural institutions, namely museums and performance halls. It doesn´t seem realistic to me that we continue to use the gratuity argument in support of democracy and equality. For the majority of the people that don´t visit museums, it´s not the ticket price (in Portugal, between €2 and €5 with discounts in national museums) that constitutes the barrier. In the same way, there are very good quality performances for €5 and with small audiences and others, much more expensive, that sell out. What makes the difference? The relevance and importance a specific offer has in people´s lives. And also being aware of that offer or not.

Having said that, one cannot ignore that in fact there exist people who wish to participate in cultural activities, but might not be able to afford it. It is an obligation for cultural institutions to consider this need, especially those supported with public funds. Free shows along the season, special prices for all in specific week days or free entries to museums on specific days of the week or the year, joint promotions among institutions – everything duly and widely promoted – are a possible answer for this need. It doesn´t mean access to all offers? That´s true, but things have a price and it´s up to each one of us to decide what is important to invest on and what is worth saving for.

When talking about diversifying our audiences though, cultural institutions must undertake a more complex deed. And the first factor to be considered is not the price. It is necessary to develop an extensive outreach programme. To get to know better the habits, needs and tastes of the people we wish to establish a relationship with is something not primarily related to offering a free entry. And should we consider that this is something that we have to do, among other things, let´s offer free entries to those people. Why extend it to everyone, though, even to those willing and capable of paying?

I presented my arguments against gratuity in two posts last year, one on museums and another on theatres, to which I would now like to add two points. First, even when entry is free, visiting a museum or attending a performance is never totally free: transport (public or private) is not free, parking in many cases neither, a meal before or after, he need to hire a babysitter… There are various costs associated and they may be significant and determinant when deciding to visit a museum/theatre or not. The second point I would like to make is that cultural institutions must pay particular attention in the way they defend and offer gratuity. When being an artist is considered a hobby and not a profession, when a big part of our society sees artists as subsidy-dependant living at the cost of everyone else, what kind of message do cultural institutions send when they offer this work (made by professionals, many times with great sacrifice) for free?

Passing now to that piece of transatlantic news: Mixed Blood Theatre in the city of Minneapolis, USA, announced last month that it will provide free access to all mainstage productions in the next three seasons (read here). The initiative is called Radical Hospitality. In the meantime, the theatre will continue charging for season passes and also for tickets bought in advance in order to guarantee entry to a specific show (the price will be $15). The artistic director stated that “this is a way to be true to our egalitarian mission, which is to be totally inclusive”. A local radio station asked the public: How big a role do ticket prices play in your choice of entertainment options? It´s worth reading the answers (see here). Mainly because, along those who say that ticket prices are prohibitive (and there exist some cases that need to be taken under serious consideration, like the costs for a family), there are also many people mentioning that associated costs are extremely high; that they are don´t know what the programme is or where the theatre is situated; that there exists diverse cultural offer, as well as options and prices for all purses.

I wish to transcribe, though, one of the answers: “The priority of attending live theatre and live concerts is a huge quality of life issue for my husband and me. (…) People need to chose carefully, but be willing to pay for the incredible commitment and talent that´s required to produce quality, live cultural events. We´re willing to have our checkbook lighter so that our lives are not poorer.” The person who gave this answer is probably not poor. But I believe it to be a question of scale and that the majority of people, within their financial capacities, would say the same should they think that what cultural institutions have to offer is relevant and important for their lives. This is the big challenge for those working in the cultural field.

At this time of crisis and cuts, national museums in the UK have started reconsidering the application of entrance fees (see reports on the impact of free entry in my post on museums). The Metropolitan Museum of Art – with free entry, but a recommended admission price of $20 – will be raising this amount to $25 as from July 1 (read here; at the end of the article there is a table of entrance fees to various American museums of art). At the same time, given the success of the Alexander Mc Queen exhibition, the museum will exceptionally open on Monday for those willing to pay $50 in order to visit (read here). There are also theatres in the USA that ask people to pay what they can in order to attend a show.

The need to generate income and work towards self-sustainability is real. The concern to give access to an offer that everyone has the right to enjoy as well. Nevertheless, when it´s access we wish to talk about, I would say that free entry is an easy measure. And that, even though, it doesn´t bring about the desired results in what concerns diversifying our audiences. In order for that to happen, there is a need for a greater effort and, in many cases, for quite a different mentality in the approach. Access starts with the language we use.

Some more reading suggestions

To charge or not to charge – Museums admission dilemma

When free ain´t exactly free

Still in this blog

Talking about ‘new’ audiences

Article 27

This week I came across Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights twice in my readings. The artivle says: “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”

The first time, it was in the book No Culture, No Future by Simon Brault. Brault in the director of National Theatre School of Canada, Vice-President of Canada Council for the Arts and President of Culture Montréal. His book concentrates on issues related to cultural participation. In the first chapter, “Culture as a forward-looking sector for the future”, the author presents the development of cultural policies in countries such as France, Great Britain, the United States, as well as Canada, he reflects on the conditions of artists, on the economic impact of culture and on its funding. It is in this context that he refers to Article 27 and the right to freely participate in cultural life, a right that justifies governmental involvement in supporting culture.

The second chapter of the book, entitled “Culture as an essential dimension of the human experience”, presents the author´s vision of culture, as a lifeline, as not only a factor that forms and defines every human being, but also one of civilization and progress. Brault refers here to The Values Study, carried out by the Connecticut Commission on Culture and with the support of Wallace Foundation, that presents the results of approximately one hundred interviews with citizens with different levels of cultural participation. The aesthetic experience, as well as cognitive, political and spiritual values are common among the interviewees, but they also give importance to the impact of cultural participation on the connection between mind and body, gaining an appreciation of ethnic and generational differences, also mentioning notions of identity, self-esteem, pride and dignity. Brault reflects on all those factor that form barriers to cultural participation (social, educational, financial and other practical – lack of time, transport, etc.) and presents a number of examples of cultural institutions that aim to provide better access, contextualizing their offer, simplifying the language they use, promoting encounters between artists and the public, but also using surtitles in opera, with live transmissions of the shows at cinemas, performing outdoors and completing the experience on the social point of view (restaurants, bars, shops, etc).

I found out in this second chapter about the Belgian Association Article 27, that brings together a number of cultural institutions and whose role is considered exemplary in the area of cultural democracy (I did not find the association´s site, but there is a reference to it here). The Association offers free tickets or tickets at a very low price, in many cases tickets that hadn’t been sold, to all those that have financial difficulties and cannot attend the performances. Currently, the Association is considering extending the offer to other types of cultural and artistic activities, apart from the performing arts. This is an initiative that makes sense and may even generate some revenue, but it concentrates in the elimination of the financial barrier, which doesn´t seem enough to me in order to consider its action fundamental for cultural democracy. The big issue here is not money (it may also be part of it), but mental and cognitive barriers.

Simon Brault embraces the declaration “Elitist culture for all”, by French director Antoine Vitez, and claims that, apart from supporting, protecting and funding excellence in art, it is important not to forget to develop the demand. In the third chapter of his book, he presents the city of Montreal as a case study of the creation of a cultural development policy in a city that wishes to be seen as a metropolis.

Simon Brault´s book didn’t tell me something new. But it is a well-written book, by someone who believes in what he´s doing and does it with passion and dedication.

I found the second reference to Article 27 in Sharon Heal´s editorial in the October issue of Museums Journal (the monthly journal of Museums Association). In September it took place in Liverpool the inaugural meeting of the Federation of International Human Rights Museums. The Federation brings together museums that deal with issues of slavery, human rights or the Holocaust, museums whose mission is also to educate and campaign for the respect and against the abuse of human rights. In her editorial, Sharon Heal claims that dealing with these issues should not be the exclusive responsibility of museums whose subject is directly or obviously related to them. Evoking Article 27, Heal reminds us that cultural rights are human rights and believes that all museums must look at their local communities and try to understand if there are people in them that are financially, intellectually or socially excluded. And if there are (we know there are), don´t museums have the obligation to do something about it?

Up to now I had not thought about the issue of cultural participation and audience development with reference to Article 27. We are all so worried about proving the value of culture and convincing governers, sponsors and the society in general of the importance and need to support it, that all too often we forget that cultural participation is a declared right. Thus, the starting point, as I claimed in my post Who deserves to be funded? (II), should be different: it should be about facilitating access (physical, cognitive, financial).

Sponsorship: a blessing or a curse?

Photo: Akira Suemori/AP

São João National Theatre missing 600 thousand euro to fullfil its programme was the title of an article in the newspaper Público on the 30th of June (read here in portuguese only). The article informed that the prestigious national theatre had lost one of its sponsors and that the director was confident that, even at a time of crisis, and given the theatre´s prestige and history, someone would show up willing to help.

It´s usually at a moment of crisis or cuts that we, cultural institutions and professionals of the sector, start talking about alternative funding sources and, more specifically, sponsorship or patronage. What should be a continuous and consistent work in fundraising, not associated to moments of crisis, becomes a cry for help, that make of us a poor relative, waiting for someone to feel sorry and save us.

I can´t imagine a company that would invest its money for feeling sorry, wanting to save someone from drowning. I don´t mean to question, of course, the prestige of São João Theatre or any other cultural institution. On the contrary, I believe that the prestige and the continuous and high quality work should make the news potential sponsors might read in the newspapers.

We are not going to find sponsors through the newspapers. This is exactly what Carlos Fragateiro did a few years ago, when he was the director of D.Maria II National Theatre (read article here in portuguese only), and, as one would expect, it didn´t result in anything. Nuno Carinhas, director of São João National Theatre, is now doing the same. We shouldn´t announce that we are looking for sponsorship because there was a cut; because we lost another funding source; because we are missing money in order to be able to fulfil our programme. A sponsorship is a partnership between equals, that benefits both sides. The objective of fundraising should be to do more and better, to go further, and not to solve financial problems. The projects proposed – either institutional or related to programming – should be strong, of quality, well structured, attractive, projects that certain companies, for reasons of either prestige or branding, would not want to miss the opportunity to become associated to.

All this reminds me of all the controversy regarding BP´s sponsorship to Tate Modern. A party to celebrate 20 years of this sponsorship caused a series of protests on behalf of many artists and has resulted in a heated exchange of opinions in the Guardian since the end of last month. All because of the accident, last April, on BP´s platform in the Gulf of Mexico that caused the greatest environmental disaster in the last years, ot ever.

Jonathan Jones, in his article Tate is right to take BP´s money, was provocative. At a moment of big cuts, as the actual moment in the UK, “If they [museums] can get money from Satan himself, they should take it”, Jones said. As far as the BP sponsorship to Tate is concerned, he was questioning what was after all the benefit for BP for sponsoring the prestigious museum. “...I wasn't even aware of its Tate sponsorship – until now. If supporting Tate is meant to associate BP with cool art, it is a failure. I must have seen the BP logo a thousand times on press releases and it never lodged in my mind. I have never thought Tate=BP, let alone Tate=BP=oil is good.”

John Sauven answered Jones´s questions in his excellent article BP arts sponsorship: can Tate afford it?. “Until the Gulf of Mexico disaster, BP's green sunflower was found only in carefully selected locations designed to give the company an air of clean, British authority: Covent Garden, the National Portrait awards, a new exhibition at the Tate. These are some of our best loved pastimes, and for BP this feelgood factor is simply priceless”.

This is the association companies are looking for and not to save us from our financial troubles. Sometimes things might not go as planned though. The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and BP´s responsibilities put Tate in a difficult position. An institution that proclaims that it will not accept funds from a donor that is believed to have acted illegally in obtaining them or that aims to be a leader in response to climate change, has now some difficult decisions to make. Opinions are divided, as we can see in the article Crude awakening: BP and the Tate, for which the Guardian interviewed various leading cultural figures. A very interesting reading.

News from the greek crisis

Petros Tatoulis, greek former Vice Minister of Culture, stated on the 9th of May to the newspaper Kathimerini: “The Ministry of Culture needs a hard reset! The timing couldn´t be better. As there is no money, it is a unique opportunity to implement radical reforms. If they don´t happen now, they´ll never happen! And the sector will become extinct."

At this time of crisis, everybody is looking at the Ministry of Culture (more precisely, after the last elections, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism) and at the organisms under its tutelage. According to Iota Sykka´s article, it is mainly the orchestras and the museums that will suffer major changes and fusions. Too many orchestras for a country of the size of Greece, some being ghost-orchestras, overlapping responsibilities, the same musicians playing in many of them.

In what concerns museums, the first fusion to be announced is that of the Cinema Museum with the Greek Film Centre in Salonika, Greece´s second largest city. It is almost certain as well the fusion of the Hellenic Culture Organization and the Archaeological Receipts Fund. There has been talk for years about their overlapping competences, nevertheless, the supporters of the party in government continued to be given jobs at the Organization. The income of both is disappointing, their services mediocre or inexistent. The actual Minister of Culture, Pavlos Geroulanos, aims to create a new organism that wil combine "the Hellenic Culture Organization´s orientation for development and the Archaeological Receipts Fund´s commercial profile". There is also the Hellenic Foundation for Culture, that, although it doesn´t present a deficit, the Ministry would like to redefine its profile and is already studying the fusion of its offices abroad with the Tourism offices.

Changes still in the theatre sector. National theatres have already been warned that, should they go above their annual budget, they should be looking for alternative sources of funding (shouldn´t this happen anyway, under any circumstances...?). The future of the Municipal Peripherical Theatres is also under the microscope. This is a network created in the early 80s by the then Minister of Culture Melina Merkouri, aiming at the decentralization and the enrichment of the cultural life of local societies. Thirty years later, the 16 theatres officially present the two productions and one children´s play they are obliged to annually. The rest of the time they function as commercial theatre companies, presenting productions of dubious quality around the country during the summer months. according to an article by journalist Sandra Voulgari (Kathimerini, 23/05/2010), apart from a few exceptions, the majority of the Municipal Peripherical Theatres are decadent. The artistic directors of the most successful theatres defend their continuation, but are asking for reforms. Actor Panos Skouroliakos, artistic director of the theatre of the region of Roumeli, speaks about an excessive number of employees, whose salaries absorb 80% of the annual budget, leaving a mere €60.000 for production. Yiannis Karachissaridis, artistic director of the theatre of the town of Kozani, defends that priority should be placed on productivity, while reducing at the same time state funding by 30%, stimulating true development. Without closing down any of the 16 theatres, he proposes a fusion into 6 anonymous societies. Nobody would get fired, but there would be fewer artistic directors. He also believed that with a €370.000 funding the six anonymous socities would be able to fullfil their missions.

Still in the sector of the performing arts, in an attempt to finish with the payment of subsidies directly by the Minister´s office (a common practice), there was created an Online Register of Cultural Structures. Any structure interested in getting a subsidy may register. All applications will be made available online, together with each subsidised structure´s history and financial situation. Applications will be evaluated by a jury specific for each sector.

In what concerns the owners of art galleries, according to an article by Elias Maglinis (Kathimerini, 02/05/2010), the majority feels there is mainly a psychological effect from the crisis on medium and new buyers. It´s not so much the lack of money, but the uncertainty about the future. Angeliki Antonopoulou, owner of a.antonopoulou.art, decided together with her artists to cut proces down by 30%. "We need to adapt", she said. On the other hand, Elisa Grigoraki, owner of Athens Art Gallery, believes that there may be people interested in investing in works of art as a means of protecting their cash. "Even during the german occupation [1941-44] the art market was very active", she says. A more positive note comes from Kalfayan brothers, owners of the homonymous galleries. They consider that the situation is under control. They have new buyers and they´ve been in art fairs in Cologne, Bologna, Dubai, Los Angeles and New York. "It´s a pity there were no more greek galleries present in those fairs. The market in Greece has flourished and they could have made that investment and help themselves (...) This is a great opportunity to promote our artists abroad." In this environment of crisis, Kalfayan brothers are expanding their space in Athens and opening up a new gallery in a peripherical town.

The statements of the President of the Board of Megaron, the Athens concert hall, are less alarmist, more realistic, pragmatic and at the same time show a certain sensitivity: "At a time of economic, social and moral crisis, culture is the antidote", says Ioannis Manos (Kathimerini, 09/05/2010 - read the interview in english here). He believes in institutions that know how to combine the visionary dimension with a correct management, programming with imagination. The Megaron is under the aegis of the Ministry of Culture, which funds 38% of its annual budget, registering nevertheless a decrease of 35% in relation to last year. The rest of the money comes from ticket sales, conferences, space hire and sponsorship, which in 2010-2011 will be higher than in the previous period. A proof of the sponsors´s trust in the institution and its perspectives. Even though, before the government´s announcement of austerity measures, the Megaron´s directors had decided a 10% cut in their salaries and the members of Kamerata, the resident orchestra, a 20% cut. Ioannis Manou said that the Megaron will adopt a more aggressive in order to attract conferences and will create a system that will guarantee multi-annual sponshorship.

Going back, to the ex-Vice Minister of Culture Petros Tatoulis´s interview (Kathimerini, 09/05/2010), let´s see his definition of those that should be the main objectives: "First objective: a new organization, open to the society. Second: provide institutioanal tools that will allow for greater flexibility and decentralization. Third: identify alternative sources of funding. Four: establish priorities. Five: select cultural 'steam engines' that will pull the rest."

Obvious things, it seems... But we are talking about years and years of bad management, lack of vision, lack of courage, lack of discipline, a budget and many public orhanisms at the service of the interests of the parties and the needs and demands of their supporters. A vicious circle, which, in fact, the country in general, and culture in particular, might be forced to abandon. Is it going to happen? How is it possible to change the greek mentality, the greek way of being and acting? A time of crisis, of little money, is, in fact, ideal for 'forcing' reforms and changes. It is an opportunity that Greece, in the middle of all its problems and because of them, should not miss.