 |
| 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).
 |
| Image taken from the newspaper Expresso. |
The Municipality simply answered
that the intent was to capture investment. And quite a few people preferred to
joke about the spelling mistake on the outdoors. The Scottish First Minister,
Nicola Sturgeon, gave another kind of answer - intended for her Scottish
counterparts in the parliament who criticised her for making her preferences regarding the American presidential candidates public, but equally useful for many more politicians and citizens alike around
the world:
“During the campaign, I
found so many of President-elect Trump’s comments to be deeply abhorrent. And I
never want to be, I am not prepared ever to be a politician that maintains a
diplomatic silence in the face of attitudes of racism, sexism, misogyny or
intolerance of any kind.” (watch the video)
It stroke me as awkward that professional
politicians are criticised by their counterparts for taking a stand for what
they believe and defend in the name of those who voted for them (even though
the Municipality of Lisbon did not admit taking a stand…). Isn’t this their
job? Isn’t this what we should expect of them? And if this is what happens with
politicians, what can one expect of the “traditionally neutral and diplomatically
silent” cultural organisations?
I do expect a lot. I still expect a
lot. The question of “What have we got to do with is?” (see suggested readings
in the end) is always present in my thinking and analysis. Because a so-called “diplomatic
silence” is as political and deafening as a strong scream.
If we turn to the US, some museums were quick to
respond. The Brooklyn Museum invited people to visit this past weekend for free
as they search “for a sense of national unity”. One also read in the statement,
“We hope that visitors will explore the museum as a great and timely learning
resource, especially our newly installed American Art galleries, which embrace
an inclusive view of history and recognize the shifting demographics of our richly
diverse country.” (read the article). The National Museum of Women in the Arts in Washington was also free this
weekend and stated on Facebook: “The National
Museum of Women in the Arts will be free to the public all weekend. We hope
that visitors will explore NMWA's collection and special exhibitions and engage
in discussions about the contributions of women. Please join us for Community
Weekend as we champion women through the arts with a renewed commitment.”
Simple, clear, discreet, and yet assertive and political.
On this side of the
Atlantic, in mid-September, we were being informed that the National Theatre in the UK had “embarked on a
major project to tell the story of modern Britain following the vote to leave
the European Union”. “I don't believe 17.5 million people are racists or
idiots. I categorically don't. I think we've got to listen", the NT
director Rufus Norris said at the time (something we should also be thinking
about Donald Trump’s voters). “We've got to try to do what little we can to
address the complete vote of no confidence in our system”, he added. The
theatre is conducting interviews about life in the UK in more than a dozen
towns and cities and these stories will then form the basis of future shows.
Simple, clear, definitely political (read the article).
 |
| Photo taken from the Byzantine Museum's Facebook page, |
In other parts of the world, cultural organisations are still following the treacherous path of perceived neutrality by remaining silent. In the beginning of this month, “The State Hermitage Museum: Gateway to History” exhibition opened at the Byzantine Museum in Athens. On 4 November, the museum shared on Facebook a photo album from the official visit of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Greece and Russia. Warm smiles and handshakes, “tea and sympathy”. Ninety likes and 4 shares later, I questioned the museum: “Mr. Lavrov’s government is air striking civilians in Syria (including the children we see on TV and which break our hearts), supporting a dictator. They also invaded a neighboring country and are occupying part of it. Why did the Greek Government and the Byzantine Museum give a chance to the Russian Foreign Minister and his government to appear… civilised?”. My question did not get an answer. It’s partly understandable. Museums are not used to be questioned and take position on such issues – they’re “neutral”… The fact is, though, that this museum proudly shared the same photo album again, a few days later. My comment did not touch a chord, apparently. “Diplomatic silence”, as usual…
Going back to Nicola
Sturgeon’s speech in the Scottish Parliament, she said “There is more of an
obligation on us now than there perhaps has been on our generation before and
this is the time for all of us, no matter how difficult, no matter how
controversial or unpopular it may be in certain quarters, to be beacons of hope
for these values [of tolerance and respect for diversity and difference].” This
is the time for all of us, whether politicians or museum and theatre directors
or culture professionals. This is the time.
More on this blog:
1 comment:
"Because a so-called “diplomatic silence” is as political and deafening as a strong scream." Great comment Maria
Post a Comment