On family - Second week at the Kennedy Center



Sk(in), by A. Balasubramaniam. The Phillips Collection (Photo: mv)

It is very frequent to hear the Kennedy Center people talking about ‘the family’. This is how they refer to all those people who support the Center´s activity, contributing with their time, knowledge, experience and money.

The nucleus of the Kennedy Center family are the members of the Board. A group of influent, well connected people, who believe in the Center´s mission and want to contribute actively to its success and growth, using all their means, including financial. Another part of the family is composed by hundreds of volunteers, who feel the Center as home and put at its service their time, qualifications and experience. There are also part of this family all those people who buy tickets to the shows or become members and funders (individuals, corporations, foundations), contributing with sums that go from $60 to thousands or millions of dollars annually.

What motivates these people? What makes them contribute so generously? There are various reasons, among them, prestige, social status, visibility, tax benefits, privileged access to some of the Kennedy Center´s offers, opportunity to meet or spend time with people with common interests. I believe, though, that the principal force that brings all these people together around the Kennedy Center is the art that is being produced and presented there: art which enthuses, surprises, touches, inspires. It´s upon this base that everything is built, including the family.

The Kennedy Center is totally conscious of the importance of the family for its sustainability (the fact that the Center is the memorial to President John Kennedy means that the federal government covers the costs of maintenance and security, but that´s all). By permanently investing on the quality of the experience (a total experience, that goes beyond the performance and includes all visitor services), the Center aims to maintain its family, but also to make it grow year after year. As I was saying in a previous post, this is not a relationship between a building and the people who come to it. It must be a relationship between the people who work in it and the people who come or might be interested in coming. At the Kennedy Center we become witnesses of this effort that involves everyone, from the President to the security guard and the volunteer usher. But we also become witnesses of the mutual wish of those people to be part of this family.

The Kennedy Center Millenium Stage.

Among all the seminars we attended last week, I was particularly interested in finding out more about the Kennedy Center´s programme Millennium Stage, which offers 365 free entry shows every year, that is one per day, always at 6 p.m. Talking about family and sustainability, and because I believe that the sustainability of cultural institutions also depends on the diversification of audiences, I wanted to understand better if the programme lives up to its motto, “Performing Arts for Everyone”. I always get a bit suspicious when I hear the people involved using the expression “for everyone”, especially when it seems that “for everyone” is mainly associated to “free”. I was surprised to find out that the Kennedy Center has no data on the people who attend these performances. Thus, we are unable to know if they are people who come for the first time or if they attend frequently; if they only attend free entry shows (and why) or if they also buy tickets (thanks to the opportunity of access created by this programme, or not); if they are people whith whom contact was established thanks to the Kennedy Center´s community partnerships or if there is no connection to them. Independent of the understanding the Kennedy Center has of the expression “for everyone” and based on the programme´s objectives, I believe that this kind of data is necessary in order to be able to evaluate its success.

Last week there were more presentations of projects the fellows are involved in in their countries. Very diverse projects, ranging from cultural institutions with national status to small individual initiatives:

Tsekh - Center for Contemporary Dance and Performance (Russia)

National Center for Culture and Arts (Jordan)

AMRITA Performing Arts (Cambodia)

The State Chamber Orchestra – Moscow Virtuosi (Russia)

Hellenic American Union (Greece)

Gateway Arts Society (Nigeria)

National Arts Council of Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe)

Cultural Center of the Philippines (Philippines)

Bayimba Cultural Foundation (Uganda)

Agora (Egypt)

Wolf Trap: "Lawn people" waiting for the concert to start. (Photo: mv)

On Saturday night, first year fellows had the opportunity to participate in a truly american experience. We went to Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts and attended the concert of Debbie Gravitt, Christiane Noll e Jan Hovarth, three Broadway divas, with the National Symphony Orchestra. People of all ages come here quite early, carrying pic nic blankets, chairs, food and drinks, and enjoy the most varied performances. The place was packed. The experience was very-very special, even for those who are not great musical funs.

The weekend plans outside the Kennedy Center included a visit to Fondo del Sol Visual Arts Center. Publicised as the second oldest latin community museum in the US (after the Museo del Barrio in New York), aiming to represent and foster the diverse cultures of the Americas and the Carribean, it is nothing more than a house smelling of must that contains an agglomerate of objects, badly exhibited and badly interpreted. Fortunatley, we have The Phillips Collection around the corner, when we can breath and marvel at Sk(in), by indian artist A. Balasubramaniam; at the The World Series photographs (2010-2011) which Allan deSouza (of indian origin, born in Kenya and raised in England) created in response to The Migration Series (1940-41) by american artist Jacob Lourence; at the Kandinsky and the Harmony of Silence exhibition, which explores and analyses the process that led to Painting with White Border.

Mount Vernon: cultural interpreter. (Photo: mv)

Another surprising and unfrogettable experience was the visit to Mount Vernon, George Washington´s estate. Apart from the beauty of the house and the surrounding areas, what enriches the experience are, undoubtedly, the cultural interpreters, some of whom dress up in costumes and play their role in the first person. All of them very-very well prepared in order to answer the visitors´s most diverse questions. Another important complement to the visit is the Donald W. Reynolds Museum and Education Center, which, through objects, interactive experiences and films presents the extremely rich story of the life of George Washington and his wife Martha.

It was a full week. Another one is starting.

On leadership - First week at the Kennedy Center



Bololô, by brazilian artist Henrique Oliveira at the National Museum of African Art.

In theory, we learn that an institution reaches its objectives, efficiently and effectively, when the whole team knows, embraces and works towards fulfilling the mission. This mission, says the theory, must be written; it must explain who, what and where; it must be clear and concise. Because the mission is the base for strategic planning. It seems obvious. It makes sense. But the truth is that, so far, I had never seen the theory put into practice, even in smaller institutions.

Until I arrived at the Kennedy Center. Last week we had seminars with the President, three Vice-Presidents (marketing, development, education), two Directors (development) and three Managers (marketing). And all of them, without exception, speak the same language; they all the Kennedy Center´s mission; they are all aware of their objectives, their role, of what is expected of them. And it becomes obvious that this allows them to plan better, to be more focused on what they are doing, to take decisions fast and without great hesitations, to be coordinated. As a result, a huge institution, that could be chaotic, seems to function like a clock. I couldn´t help asking Michael Kaiser, President of the Kennedy Center, how this can be possible. If he himself explains the mission and objectives to each employee (which seemed rather improbable to me) or if he talks to the Vice-Presidents, they with the Directors, these with the Managers, etc, until reaching the base of the pyramid (running the risk of loosing the message during the process). How is it possible for all these people to be speaking exactly the same language? “We talk a lot”, he answered me, “at all levels”.

Seminar with Michael Kaiser (Photo: Consuelo Hidalgo)

Michael Kaiser´s answers are usually simple. They seem to be stating the obvious. Nevertheless, what he didn´t say, but seems equally obvious to me, is that leadership makes all the difference. When the person at the top knows what he/she wants, is focused and determined, puts the theory into practice, does not deviate, brings around him/her people with experience and capacity (actually, looks for the best), promotes dialogue and thinking and is not afraid of making decisions (even the tough ones) and assume responsibility, then yes, adding a lot of conversation to these attributes, at all levels, we have a team that knows what it´s doing, how and why. And we can see and feel the results of their work. Michael Kaiser is a leader, without a doubt. It has been a privilege watching this team working and in the nest few weeks we´ll have the opportunity to follow them closer.

The Summer International Fellowship Program brings together this year 36 professionals from 32 countries. The day at the Kennedy Center begins and ends with the presentation of projects in which the fellows are involved. This is one of the best parts of the day. Each person makes a short presentation of the mission and objectives of the institution or project, talks about the challenges he/she is actually facing and we then discuss them in the group. Last week we had the chance to get to know a bit better the following projects:

Swahili Performing Arts Center (Zanzibar)

Esplanade (Singapore)

Dejvické Theatre (Czech Republic)

Jos Repertory Theatre (Nigeria)

Next Cultural Society (Romania)

Wekalet el Ghouri Arts Centre (Egypt)

Last week we also had the chance to attend a National Symphony Orchestra concert presenting the 2011-2012 season. The NSO is the Kennedy Center resident orchestra and this free entry, approximately one hour long concert aims to present the orchestra and some of the next season´s highlights in order to encourage the purchase of subscriptions. The excerpts of the works presented had been very carefully chosen and were briefly introduced – with a lot of enthusiasm, passion, sensibility and sense of humour – by orchestra conductor Ankush Kumar Bahl. One is left feeling that he/she cannot miss what´s coming ahead. Yesterday the public was able to attend the NSO´s dress rehearsal for the Independence Day commemorative concert that takes place today in the Capitole gardens.

Outside the Kennedy Center, I was finally able to visit the National Museum of the American Indian and to participate in a tour guided by a member of the education depatrment, someone who belonges to the Lakota nation and has the title of cultural interpreter. This cultural experience was concluded at the museum restaurant, the Mitsitam Native Foods Café, that offers a wide range of indian dishes from all over the continent (‘mitsitam’ means ‘let´s eat’ and the recipe book is available at the café and the museum store).

Poster of the exhibition Indivisible at the National Museum of American Indian.

The exhibition Artists in Dialogue at the National Museum of African Art, which brings together south-african artist Sandile Zulu and the brazilian Henrique Oliveira was also highly recommended to me. This is the second of a series of exhibitions where the museum invites two artists to create new works in dialogue with each other. In this museum I also had the opportunity to visit the temporray exhibition African Mosaic: a decade of collecting, which presents objects that were purchased or donated to the museum in the last decade. The majority of the visitors at the time of my visit had gathered in the area where one could watch the video of senegalese artist Ousmane Sow while creating his impressive sculptures.

Today we all celebrate Independence Day in a special party organized at the terrace of the Kennedy Center. It is a privilege to be able to be here and celebrate it with the Americans and with colleagues from all over the world, some of whom dream of this day coming soon for them too.

Starting at the Kennedy Center

Photo: mv

I am starting today my one-month training at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington. The centre opened in 1971, positioning itself as an organization that presents excellent American and international artists and performances, that supports new work and young artists and that is a leader in arts management training, both nationally and internationally.

It is the investment of the Kennedy Center in this later field, training, that brings every year to Washington culture professionals from all over the world. Michael Kaiser, President of the Kennedy Center and founder of the DeVos Institute of Arts Management at the Kennedy Center, believes that, apart from the need to support talent and artistic creation, there is a need to train good arts managers, watchful and sensitive regarding the changes (social, political, technological and economic) that affect the cultural sector, able to draw strategic plans that can guarantee a healthy and efficient management of the institutions that exist to support artistic creation and make it accessible for the public.

The Summer International Fellowship (SIF), in which I am going to participate, lasts three years and the fellows spend one month in each of these years at the Kennedy Center, having the opportunity to learn with some of the best professionals in the fields of strategic planning, marketing, fundraising and financial management. The training involves seminars, masterclasses, group and individual projects, the integration of the fellows in various departments of the Kennedy Centre, as well as a series of special events, from performances to encounters with arts management professionals and other influential figures in the cultural field.

The fellows of my year come from Africa, Asia and Europe. I will be sharing this experience with the Deputy Director of Kuona Trust (Nairobi, Kenya); the Executive Director of Kwani Trust (Nairobi, Kenya); the founder of Made for Stage Productions (Karachi, Pakistan); the General Manager of Corporate Communications of the Mahindra Foundation (India); the co-founder, Executive Director and Artistic Director of Evam Entertainment (Chennai, India); the founder and Director of Siddharta Art Gallery and Kathmandu Contemporary Arts Centre (Kathmandu, Nepal); the Head of Foreign Affairs of the National Ballet of China; the Director of Dance UK; the Deputy Director of the National Centre of Folk Culture (Kiev, Ucraine); the founder and President of ARS DOR Association (Chisinau, Moldavia); and the Director of POGON – Zagreb Centre for Independent Culture and Youth (Zagreb, Croatia). During our month at the Kennedy Center we will meet and have some common classes with fellows from the two previous years. Thirty six participants from thirty two countries. The Kennedy Center invests on all of them, all of us, in order to train good arts managers all over the world and, naturally, its ambassadors.

I am truly lucky and privileged to be able to participate in the Kennedy Centre SIF. This is going to be a great adventure. I obviously wish to learn, learn, learn. But, in this initial phase in particular, I wish for all my ‘certainties’ to be challenged.

House with a roof but no foundations?

The brazilian portal Cultura e Mercado announced last week that the House of Representatives is going to create a commission in order to analyse the Proposal for an Amendment to the Constitution, that recognizes access to culture as a social right. In the same piece of news they were talking about the Culture Voucher bill, according to which each worker who earns up to five times the minimum salary will get a monthly subsidy of R$50 (approximately €22) in order to be allowed access to products and services in the visual and performing arts, audiovisual, literature, music and cultural heritage.

I was very curious about this project. I thought about practical issues (is it going to be a card from which the value of the products will be discounted, a voucher booklet, will it be exchanged in establishments that accept to be part of the initiative, will workers have to present receipts…?), but I mainly thought about the objectives and expectations of the project.

I found some answers in the final draft of the bill:

“Art. 1 It is hereby instituted, under the management of the Ministry of Culture, the Worker´s Programme of Culture, aimed at providing workers with means in order to exercise their cultural rights and have access to cultural sources.

Art. 2 The Worker’ s Programme of Culture has the following objectives:

I – To allow for access and fruition of cultural products and services;

II – To stimulate the visitation of establishments that provide the integration of science, education and culture; and

III – To encourage access to cultural and artistic events and performances.”

In another article in Cultura and Mercado, entitled Democratização do acesso à cultura (Democratization of access to culture), I read a critical analysis of this proposal. The author, Roberto Baungartner, presented statistics such as: only 13% of Brazilians go to the cinema at least once a year; more than 92% have never been to a museum or art exhibition; 78% have never attended a dance performance. Some of these data are also mentioned in the Culture Voucher official video.

Roberto Baungartner believes that this initiative, apart from benefiting culture itself, will create more jobs and revenue, it will reduce violence and will increase, in what concerns demand, the production chains involved. He also believes that it will make brazilian companies more competitive in the international field.

Once again, I don´t find the objectives and expectations to be realistic and well structured. I always have serious doubts that democratizing access to culture is something one can take care of, first of all, with measures like this one, that seem to be leaving aside the main issues in what concerns access.

In Baungartner´s article we can also read that more than 90% of brazilian municipalities have no cinema rooms, theatre, museums and cultural spaces in general (he actually mentions that the 6000 cinema rooms Brazil once had are now reduced to 200). So, my questions are the following:

- Without the necessary spaces and cultural habits related to the programmes these places normally offer, can we really believe that a R$50 subsidy is what´s missing in order to create access?

- It is very promising that a government is willing to recognize the social right to culture (it is actually a human right) and to consider it in the constitution amendment. Nevertheless, it needs to be clear for all what is ‘culture’, how it is produced, by whom, where, and what is necessary in order to provide access to it (both in what concerns production and consumption). I say this, because the Culture Voucher official video, quite well done, presents, in the meantime, a vision of what culture is quite concentrated in the so-called ‘high culure’, access to which – for the majority of the people who never go to the cinema, to a museum or to the theatre – is not provided, in the first place, with a R$50 monthly subsidy.

At a time when cultural institutions are looking for ways to share the responsibility of managment and programming with actual and, mainly, potential audiences, through the recognition of various forms of cultural fruition and the creation of conditions that would facilitate access to it, the brazilian initiative seems to ignore recent developments and trends and to be limited to issues that, in my opinion, are important but secondary in this discussion. It is, nevertheless, an interesting initiative, probably innovative, that has produced a large amount of consensus among the different agents that will be involved in it and from which many people will certainly benefit. It will be interesting to follow its development and be able to compare the results against the initial objectives.

Silent and apolitical?

Photo: Maria Vlachou

One hundred million sunflower seed made of porcelain, each one created individually by more than 1600 artisans. Do they look inoffensive? ‘Apolitical’? Well, they aren´t. Actually, it was the progressive discovery of the political meaning in this work by Ai Weiwei that thrilled me when I saw it in Tate Modern last October.

Ai Weiwei, Chinese artist and political activist, was detained by the Chinese authorities on April 3, when he was ready to board a plane. Nobody heard of him for weeks. There were no formal accusations, except some rumours about economic crimes. His wife was able to see him more than a month later, in the presence of two guards. He looked well physically, but was visibly nervous.

Photo: Reuters

Ai Weiwei´s world, artists and museums of contemporary art in many countries, reacted to his detention. Among other initiatives, Tate Modern projected on its façade the phrase “Release Ai Weiwei”; artist Anish Kapoor called on museums and art galleries all over the world to close for one day in protest; Cuban artist Geandy Pavon projected Ai Weiwei´s portrait on the Chinese consulate´s wall in New York; the Guggenheim Museum started a petition online that has already been signed by more than 140.000 people (read about the various initiatives here). Last week, Philip Bishop wrote in the Guardian that museums are not doing all they can. Signing a petition is not enough, he was saying, museums should make their support for Ai Weiwei more visible, namely through their homepages. And in the same newspaper, Hari Kunzru was questioning the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts´s silence, which is now exhibiting the famous terracotta warriors, and was hoping that this unique opportunity to raise awareness about the Chinese artist´s detention wouldn´t be lost.

In the middle of all the worries expressed at an international level, the statements of some museums directors that museums “don´t do politics” (read the interview with the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts director) or that museums “don´t do protests” and that “they are apolitical” (read here about the statements of the Milwaukee Art Museum director and the reactions of other professionals) are disappointing, to say the least. Of course museums do politics: when they decide what to exhibit or not; when they allow for dialogue or not; when they choose their partners; when they turn a blind eye to issues such as human rights and freedom of speech, claiming to be ‘apolitical’. Both at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts and the Milwaukee Art Museum there will soon open exhibitions on China. Clearly, both directors are doing politics.

There are museums whose nature clearly associates them to political (and social) issues: the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Ottawa or the Museo de la Memoria y de los Derechos Humanos in Santiago de Chile; the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington (deeply committed to the prevention of genocide, but where the word ‘Palestine’ is not mentioned even once); the District Six Museum in Cape Town, to mention only some, very few. In general, history museums that cannot (although sometimes they wish and try to…) escape their nature. Nevertheless, any declaration of neutrality would be false.

Are art museums exempt? But… can they be? Neither the nature of their collections (art is not neutral, it´s not apolitical) nor their businesses allow for it. Curiously enough, the Guggenheim Museum, that started the online petition in favour of Ai Weiwei, has found itself involved in a case related to human rights. The New York Times announced back in March, together with a number of other media, that more than 130 artists had decided to boycott the new museum being built in Abu Dhabi, due to the working conditions of foreign workers involved in its construction (conditions that became widely known some time ago through the CBS programme 60 Minutes, but which have also been registered on the site of the Human Rights Watch). The artists demanded an immediate independent inspection and threatened not to participate in any events neither to sell their works to the future museum. The situation isn´t easy for the Guggenheim Museum, that aims to build a collection from scratch for this new museum, mainly dedicated to artists from the Middle East (some of the most prominent figures are part of the protest group). The Museum´s answer may be read here.

In a post I wrote last year, entitled Places of encounter, I quoted David Fleming, president, at the time, of INTERCOM (the ICOM international committee for management): “Gone are the days when museums have to stand aloof, pretending they are not part of the society they are supposed to serve, carrying on oblivious of their surroundings as though the culture they display has no political or social relevance. Museums need not be neutral spaces – they can be so much more”.

Life is not apolitical. Art is not apolitical. How could museums be? Museums that truly wish to be part of society and to get its support are not silent nor neutral nor apolitical. Museums that have a notion of their mission do not become irrelevant.

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

Ministry of Culture: can we keep the debate going for a second week?

Lux, by Laura Vinci (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

Although names have a secondary importance when big issues are being discussed, but because they do, nonetheless, have their importance and meaning, I would like to start by saying that the country has got to have a Ministry of Culture and that I do not consider convincing the arguments of Pedro Passos Coelho regarding suppressing the Ministry and placing Culture under the prime minister´s direct competence. Having said that, I thank the PSD candidate for the provocation he launched, which resulted in a very interesting debate during the whole of last week. Personally, I feel the need to comment on two issues.

The first issue has to do with the urgency to reformulate the Ministry and the sector as a whole. That is, to create contents so that words may gain a true meaning. Some aspects that I consider important and an absolute priority:

Vision, mission, strategy

In this order and not the opposite one… What is Culture in today´s world? Why is it important in the life of all of us? If everyone has the right to freely participate in it, how can access be guaranteed? Who produces what, where and how? Who consumes what, where and how? How to move beyond the era of the ‘guardians’ (who insist on defining what, where and how) to the era of the 'contemporary cosmopolitans', open to various trends and tastes? How to create conditions so that Culture may become an issue for and of all of us?

Professionalization and networking

The sector cannot continue to be managed with good intensions and amateurism. If its importance (intrinsic, as well as social and economic) is recognized, it is urgent to recruit professionals with solid theoretical knowledge and excellent experience, as well as to guarantee professional training to all those lacking it but wishing to continue working in the field. Apart from that, we cannot continue acting in isolation. It is of extreme importance that culture professionals develop and maintain professional networks – locally, nationally and internationally -, in order to guarantee the indispensable exchange of people and ideas, as well as the sharing of best practices and experiences, which result in professional growth and contribute to the sector´s development.

Healthy management, emancipation, sustainability

Without pretending to excuse the State from its responsibilities towards the citizens, producers and consumers of culture, it is imperative to have a clear notion of reality. The money the State is able to invest is not enough for all and for everything (it has always been embarrassingly little, but, at the same time, the sector has always asked for more without trying to evaluate first if all money was well spent; nobody has ever assumed responsibility for money badly or wrongly invested, either…). The State needs to establish clear objectives and priorities. But the sector cannot stop. There are various business models; we must study them and look for those that are more appropriate for our reality and needs. There is a specificity in Culture, that is true. But it is also true that culture managers do existe, understand and embrace this specificity.

The issue of the reformulation of the Ministry and the sector cannot be resumed, obviously, in these three points, but these are the ones I consider a priority at the moment. If these three points are addressed, they will end up affecting all others. This is why the approach must be based on fundamental principles (almost permanently ignored): honesty, transparency, accountability, meritocracy.

The second issue I would like to comment on has to do with the need for all of us to assume our responsibilities and to maintain a permanent debate at all levels in the sector. We cannot continue to simply react to provocations, cuts announcements, appointments, re-structures, etc. These reactions are normally of a short duration. Once the effect of the provocation is gone, we go back to sleeping or resigning. Nevertheless, all these questions are permanent. Last week, people who are known and respected in the field shared their opinions with all of us regarding a possible extinction of the Ministry of Culture. But the sector is not made only of those people. It is made of many more, maybe less known, but also intelligent, worried, well informed, intellectually honest. Where are they? Why aren’t those voices being heard (with very few exceptions)? Why don´t they feed the debate, they don´t take position, they don´t express their agreement or disagreement? We are not lacking platforms of expression, especially nowadays. It´s not just the consulting councils of ‘men of culture’ that help to make political decisions, each one of us should also contribute. Are we waiting for an invitation to speak up? It might never come and that wouldn´t make us less accountable. To express one´s opinion is one´s right, but it is also one´s duty.

Also in this blog

Where is everybody? (7.02.2011)
A blue (or any other colour) hug to the crisis (13.12.2010)
After all, what does 'strategic' mean? (12.07.2010)
About the Culture Minister´s interview (28.06.2010)
Of all and for all? (31.1.2011)
Article 27 (15.11.2010)