Bill De Blasio's inauguration (photo taken from the portal Hyperallergic) |
Bill de Blasio is New York´s 109th Mayor.
He’s married to poet and activist Chirlane McCray. His inauguration was on
January 1. Two days before that, the New York Times (NYT) published the article
A new mayor brings hope for a populist arts revival. I was curious. The newspaper referred that the new
mayor has got a populist brand and that, considering his cultural and artistic
preferences, one may expect him to get interested in a part of the city´s
cultural life that is quite different from the one that attracted his
predecessor, Michael Bloomberg. The NYT actually referred that the new mayor
was never seen at the Lincoln Center and that his family rarely visits the
city’s big art museums. On the contrary, there are usually seen in small
neighborhood museums and galleries. Chirlane McCray frequents reading sessions,
was member of the jury of a number of poetry competitions and arranged for the
poem of a young poet to be read on her husband’s inauguration day. De Blasio’s
transition committee (that is, the people who will help him form his team)
includes experts from the Public Theater, the Brooklyn Museum, the Brooklyn
Academy of Music, as well as the director of Studio Museum in Harlem.
A few days later, Hyperallergic published an article by Mostafa Heddaya
entitled De Blasio and the mythology of a new arts populism. Heddaya comments on the NYT’s considerations, but
concludes that the cultural interest of the new mayor and his wife are of
little relevance, just like the ones of his predecessor. Heddaya, together with
other commentators he quotes in his article, is more concerned about how the
new administration will support the arts, in a constructive and fair way, and
whether they will manage to attract donors in order to compensate for the
support given by Bloomberg to a number of cultural institutions in the city, by
investing his own millions.
Problems with funding and permanent problems because of the lack of
constructive and fair cultural policies. New York doesn’t seem to be facing a
different situation than that of a number of other cities. Nevertheless, and
apart from this discussion, I was left thinking about two other things: the
fact that the new mayor’s cultural preferences are considered “populist” by the
NYT (is there some other meaning to the word that I am not aware of?); but,
mostly, the fact that these preferences and habits are an issue, discussed
publicly, in newspapers and blogs. I know little or nothing about the cultural
habits of the men and women who govern us. Rarely is this an issue among us,
before or after elections. And rarely did I see them at the places I used to
work or go to, except when their presence was required by protocol. (There are
some bright exceptions; few. It´s the case of those politicians who also didn’t
ask for an invitation to come and watch a performance; they paid the ticket).
I was once again left with this in mind, I was left thinking if it
matters what books our politicians read, which plays they see, what music they
listen to, what were their favourite films in 2013. Another event in the US
reminded me of this issue.
Photo: Witness Against Torture (taken from Flickr) |
On January 11, the day of the
12th anniversary of the opening of Guantanamo, Witness Against Torture activists did a protest at the National Museum of
American History in Washington (see here). Using the characteristic orange jumpsuits and
black hoods, they assumed detention poses near the museum entrance. Others
delivered a speech, asking President Obama to free the remaining 155 prisoners
and close the camp. Later, they moved to the exhibition “The price of freedom:
Americans at war”, they assumed the same detention poses and exhibited signs
saying “Are these the price of freedom?” or “Civil liberty?”.
I saw in the choice of venue
a more favourable symbolism for the museum than the one the organizers actually
aimed to assign. “We came here
today because we want to see Guantanamo relegated to a museum”, they wrote in a
press release. But they also said: “(...) we want it to be shuttered and
condemned, but also understood as an example of where fear, hatred and violence
can take us.”
It was in
Tzvetan Todorov’s book “La peur des barbares: Au-delà du choc des
civilisations” that I first read about the Torture Memo, a document
prepared by the legal office of the
American Ministry of Justice, which was used to present a “new definition” of
what constitutes torture and to defend the legitimacy of acts committed by the
american government. A language that was very well elaborated by someone who
knows how to use (or abuse?) words. A shocking public document which was used
to justify inhuman, humiliating and shameful acts (this is why I thought that
the choice of National Museum of American History had a more profound meaning
than seeing Guantanamo
‘relegated’ to a museum”).
I was once
again left thinking: what kind of books do they read, what kind of plays do
they see, what kind of music do they listen to, what are the favourite films of
those politicians, lawyers, security agents, economists and others who, taking
advantage of and nurturing our fears, find justifications for barbarity and
wish to turn us into their accomplices. From torturing prisoners who have never
been formally accused, to promoting referenda on fundamental rights, cutting
already miserable pensions, increasing the number of students by class and
reducing the number of teachers and subjects, putting at risk the good
functioning of cultural institutions and compromising access to them, human rights
are being violated every day, ‘for a good cause’, in our ‘civilized’ countries.
Distribution of food and clothes, Portugal, Christmas 2013 (Photo: Bruno Simões Castanheira for the Projecto Troika) |
No comments:
Post a Comment