There were two occasions for a first appreciation of the National Plan of the Arts (NPA): its public presentation, on 18 June, and the reading of the document. I'll start by sharing my thoughts on the first.
The room where the
presentation took place was packed. Many colleagues, journalists, people
representing private organisations that support the cultural sector and the arts.
One could feel the good mood and the expectation, mixed with some distrust (“Will
this be it?”). I believe that that moment of encounter and everything one felt
in the air was a positive sign that the sector is made up of professionals who
are still very much interested and ready to get involved in a common effort
that may value, support and strengthen their work and their contribution to
society.
Having said that, it
would be impossible not to notice the large absence of museum professionals. We
could count them on our 10 fingers. This truly strengthened my concern that this
part of the sector has been experiencing moments discouragement, demotivation,
lack of vision and, consequently, some disorientation in relation to its role
in society. The absence of those colleagues in moments of reflection and
action, big and small, formal and informal, has been notorious in the last months.
I believe it is urgent to recognise the signs and to think about the future,
near and far (this may be a task for the newly-constituted Group for Museums in
the Future).
The of the first impressions
I had from the public presentation of the NPA was the indiscriminate use of the
words "culture" and "arts" (later, the word "heritage"
was also added). In recent months, in meetings and conferences I attended both
in Portugal and abroad, the indiscriminate use of these words has been much
questioned. Personally, I consider it a worrying sign, because if the confusion
persists among the members of the sector, its impact on the relationship
between professionals and citizens, the distancing of a large part of the
Portuguese society, will intensify.
Another issue that came
up on the day of the presentation was the focus on the school. My criticism is
not dissociated from the previous point. It is more than natural, and
desirable, for a national plan of the arts to identify the school community as one
of its main target audiences. One among others. Although there were references
to inclusion, access, to so-called "vulnerable" communities, there is
no doubt that attention was mainly given to the school. And it made me, precisely,
think about the school, especially when the Minister of Education took the
floor. I thought of my 14-year-old son, of the cultural and artistic experiences
provided by his schools (three of them: 1st, 2nd and 3rd cycle), as well as of the
opportunities he had to develop his critical thinking. I don’t think any of
this happened at school. On the one hand, because many teachers are not prepared
or interested in assuming this responsibility. On the other hand, because those
who are prepared and interested (and they exist and should get all our support)
have seen their working conditions deteriorating significantly. I ask myself if
there was a diagnosis on behalf of the Ministry of Education before working on
the plan. Also because the speech of the minister was inexplicably triumphant regarding
what is happening today, when I often think of the many children and young
people whose parents do not provide them (for a number of reasons) with a
series of opportunities. Today, we cannot pretend to ignore the impact certain
opportunities given (or not given) to young people may have on the construction
of the society of the future. And its Culture.
Moving to the second moment,
today I had the opportunity to read the NPA. I believe it is the result of a good
reflection by people who are knowledgeable on these issues – colleagues whose experience
we recognise and respect. Thus, they managed to bring together in the NPA those
principles that move us and a vision shared by many among us. The assumptions
and values (pages 15-17) and the strategic indicators announced (page 19) demonstrate
the existence of a clear path, which may result on solid action. The reactions
of several colleagues, as they were reading the document, showed great
enthusiasm and motivation to become involved and contribute. A promising start,
a set of ideas which, although not exactly new, create some hope when they are
built into a plan of action for the short and long term.
Reading the NPA confirmed
some of the concerns felt on the day of the presentation and brought up others
still. Because the sector (and the country) urgently needs to see the good
theories put into practice, I would like to share them here.
The indiscriminate use
of the words "culture", "arts" and "heritage",
referred in relation to the public presentation of the NPA, comes up in the
document too. I think that at this early stage it would be useful to re-think
them and clarify the meaning of each one of them, because this will affect the
action on the ground, the objectives set and the evaluation of the results. The
confusion in relation to these words decisively contributes, in my opinion, to
a certain arrogance projected by several members of our sector and the lack of a
relationship with the citizens. An arrogance that, in many cases, goes against
the idea of "for everyone and with each one".
Although there was no
clear reference to the construction of a cultural democracy on the day of the
presentation, it is clearly mentioned in the document (page 16), hand in hand
with the "democratisation". The country (many countries) today needs
us to work conscientiously and honestly in the construction of a cultural
democracy. The democratisation (often associated - also in this government's
programme - with free entries and digital contents) perpetuates practices that
guarantee access to a culture defined by some experts as being "of
merit", reinforce the distinction between "high" and "low"
culture, demonstrate an understanding of culture as a product of some consumed
by others. Once again, the principle "for everyone and with each one"
is contradicted and this document also shows signs of having more concrete
ideas about the democratisation of culture (page 16, as well as the commitments
and actions proposed on pages 25 and 26) and more vague ideas about building a
democratic culture. I believe that this part can and should be better developed
under the NPA.
The focus on school is
also confirmed in the document. Although there are references to senior citizens
or "vulnerable" (I put the word in quotation marks because I question
its use in this context) or excluded communities, the school continues to
occupy a predominant place, to the point of questioning whether the reference
to other groups will be, in practical terms, somewhat residual. This feeling
has been reinforced by the way school-related objectives are not sorted out on
page 19 in a block, admitting that it is a specific target audience, but are
constantly mingling with others, presenting a confusing version of the
objectives of the NPA (with the school influencing its subconscious and
limiting its action?).
Although the NPA seems
to be aware of the obligation and need to work for the "vulnerable"
and excluded, I hope that in practice it will also be aware that culture itself
as a sector has got some issues in terms of its relationship with many other
groups and in terms of its representativeness; and that the
"vulnerable" and excluded may even have a strong culture, but one
that becomes marginalised and invisible by the system itself.
Finally, the budget. I believe
I heard something in the presentation about €500,000. Is that it? Will this not
be too little considered the - legitimate and long awaited - ambition? And
because the smaller the budget, the better must be the use of existing
resources, when, for example, another portal is announced, we must ask: what
happened to the Portal of Cultural Experiences, presented in June 2015 as part
of the National Strategy for Education and Culture and that we could previously
find on www.educacaocultura.gov.pt?
I came out of the NPA
presentation (and I finished reading the document) feeling that I would like to
understand better: What do the Ministries of Culture and Education mean by
"inclusion", "access"? What is happening in the Portuguese
society today and what issues do these two ministries believe must be addressed
and why? The NPA is a response to what? I believe that the concrete actions
that will be developed will soon answer some of these initial doubts.
"A permanent
relationship with the arts and heritage of different cultures also teaches us
to respect the experience of the other, to be more receptive to their culture,
their interpretation of the world, promoting sharing, argumentation, knowledge
of the criteria of judgment of taste and their historical evolution", one
reads on page 16. I smiled because I remembered the public discussion around
the Museum of the Discoveries or racism in Portugal; the opinions shared by
many influential figures (some belonging to the area of heritage and culture)
and the way in which they received and reacted to the opinions of the
"other" - who has not been the "other" for a long time now,
but continues to be treated as such . To what Education of the past (?) do we
owe this Culture of the present? And how to deal with it?
More texts:
No comments:
Post a Comment