Choir of ex-miners at the Mines of Lousal. Coming together to sing was (and is)
important to them. (Photo: Maria Vlachou)
The title is a quote
from Justin O´Connor’s book “Culture is not an industry
– Reclaiming art and culture for the common good”. Before I get into it,
two episodes from my professional life come to mind.
In 2016, Access Culture found out about a working group constituted the year before by the Portuguese government to tackle the refugee crisis. The following sectors where represented in this group: Directorate-General for European Affairs/Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Foreigners and Borders Service, the Social Security Institute, the Institute for Employment and Vocational Training, the Directorate-General for Health, the Directorate-General for Education and the High Commissioner for Migrations. Culture was not invited to be part. Our association wrote to the Ministry of Culture and we were informed that the group was almost completing its task and that the Ministry would pay more attention in the future. More attention to what…? Noone considered that Culture had anything to do with the arrival of refugees to a small country – not even the Ministry of Culture and perhaps also quite a few cultural professionals.
Four years on, the
pandemic hits and, as we try to deal with the uncertainty this experience
brings to our lives and to the sector, funds for the “Culture for All”
programme are diverted, as Culture is not considered to be “essential” at that
point. And yet, so many of us turned to music, films, TV series, livestreamed
theatre, we sang at our windows, we applauded health workers from our
balconies, we looked at our neighbours in the eye and, when we asked “How are
you?”, we really expected to hear an answer. Yet, culture was not deemed
“essential”.
In his book, O’Connor
analyses this “strategic failure of the cultural sector” after embracing, in
the late 90’s, its rebranding into “cultural and creative industries”. A bit of
history:
“In 1997, Chris Smith, head of the newly established Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), prepared to get approval for his new budget (…); [needing] to convince the Treasury to reverse two decades of cuts to arts and culture. His team suggested rebranding: Culture, as coupled with ‘art’, was inevitably seen as elitist. Creativity was democratic, modern and energetic (…) It too was economically productive (…) [and would] open the door to political influence and resources. The ‘creative industries’ would provide jobs to replace those lost in the manufacturing and, hitched now to a new ‘knowledge economy’, opened up exciting vistas of social mobility and meaningful work.” (p.35)
By now, we know that
this rebranding did not live up to its promises and this became all too clear
especially during the pandemic, when we all saw how fragile the sector is. And
it also has a lasting effect, one that still keeps the sector trapped to other
agendas. As Culture Action Europe’s recent report “State
of Culture” puts
it, questions like “what do we contribute to the economy, how can we make
cultural institutions carbon neutral and how do we contribute to health and
wellbeing” are very relevant, but, instead of struggling to answer them, we
should make space for our own questions:
“Where is our political argument concerned with how we see humans in our society? In other words, how people relate to each other in communities and how they can not only enjoy the ‘negative freedom’ to consume, to vote and to ‘like’, but also the ‘positive freedom’ to make informed choices, build communities, take political responsibility and lead a life that allows for meaning making?” (Lars Ebert, General Secretary of Culture Action Europe, in the forward, pp.4-5).
In his book, Justin
O’Connor writes about the positive freedom to do, to become; a freedom that “is
not simply about desires and wants, but about deciding who we ought to be and
what we ought to do.” (p.10). He refers specifically to the de-politicising of
culture as a result of its rebranding into cultural and creative industries.
Right from p.1, he reminds us that we have to re-politicise it, because “Culture
is central to what it is to be human, to live in a social world. (…) [it should
be moved] back into the sphere of public responsibility alongside health,
education, social welfare and basic infrastructure.” He advocates for “a new
framework for cultural policy, where social infrastructure – that which makes
social life possible – becomes a distinct part of basic needs (p.24). And he
defends that access to culture should be considered “a fundamental part of
citizenship” and, by this, he means “those things we cannot do without if we
are to fully participate in society and realise our potential”. (p.126)
One of the most
essential parts in this book for me is the discussion around what should be
considered essential in a person’s life. In 1976, the Industrial Assistance
Commission in Australia reported to Gough Whitlam, who had just established the
Australia Council for the Arts, that the performing arts “provide
psychological, emotional or intellectual stimulation and other forms of
personal satisfaction to individuals. However, [these] … do no, of themselves,
justify public assistance.” (p. 41) Thus, it is more of a personal choice for
individual satisfaction, the choice of an elite which knows how to appreciate
“the arts”. Still today, many people question whether we should fix health,
education, housing, transport, food, energy, water, basic communication systems
before we get to culture (p.109). “The history of working class popular culture
suggests differently”, says O’Connor (p.132) and he also makes another very
relevant remark:
“The social foundations, then, must include the basic human desire for recognition, respect, purpose, and meaning derived from the social world in which we live. (…)The accordance of respect and recognition means allowing the working class to pursue aspirations of ‘identity, affiliation, participation, creativity and experience’ just as much as the professional-managerial class. To fail to see this is to radically misunderstand the explosions of working-class ‘populism’ in Brexit, Donald Trump, Bolsonaro and the ‘gilets jaunes’.” (pp.113-114).
“Freedom for what? Culture for what?” was the title of my intervention last year at the
University of Coimbra, in a series of debates organised as the Portuguese
revolution was approaching its 50th anniversary. I was questioning at the time
what it meant for our society, what it said about the culture, the fact the
pregnant women could die in this country because of lack of health services
where they live; the fact that modern slave owners answer their critics that
this is how it is if we want to eat cherry tomatoes; the fact that a Roma girl in
this country can stay out of school because a judge confirms that this is the
tradition in her community; the fact that police keeps killing and brutalising
black citizens; etc., etc. At the same time, I questioned how many of us,
working in this field, and how many citizens in society at large see the role
Culture might have in all this. How many see Culture as something more than
scheduling artistic and cultural events and activities, but without a vision of
who we are and who we wish to be? Or as something more than the distribution of
“cultural facilities” (i.e buildings for museums, theatres, libraries) in
different parts of the country?
A bit before he died at
the age of 35, Christos Grammatides, a Greek lawyer and social media persona
said in an interview: “Don’t leave people alone. Dignity lies in togetherness”.
It is this “togetherness” we should be looking to build, this culture of care, solidarity,
respect and recognition of everyone’s potential and everyone’s right to
contribute to what our life in common is and should be. Not only when a tragedy
or a pandemic strikes, but as a way of being, of living a life worth living.
the floods in Valencia (
No comments:
Post a Comment