First thoughts on the National Plan of the Arts

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.

Who’s welcome to your home and at your table?

To Lambrina and Sam, Eleni and Nikos
To good friends and good discussions

Last June, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House Press Secretary, was asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant. The request was made by the restaurant owner. 

In mid-August, the invitation to Marine Le Pen, former French presidential candidate and leader of the National Rally political party, to attend the Web Summit in Lisbon was followed by public outcry. The invitation was eventually withdrawn.

Both incidents raised questions regarding freedom of speech; whether one can fight extremist political views and address the roots of the rise of the far-right by banning or ignoring certain viewpoints; and whether by excluding some people you don’t also become like them yourself.

“Whites only”: would you go in?

There are two recent incidents which made me think. They are lessons learnt and they influence my way of evaluating situations and making professional and personal decisions.

Discussing the decolonisation of museums in Portugal

Photo: Maria Vlachou

I love museums. I love them for what they are; I love them for what they are not, but can be; I love them for their potential. I especially love them because of the work developed by a number of colleagues around the world so that museums may adapt to new realities, remain or become relevant for people, and even reinvent themselves. I particularly love them lately because of the controversies they cause or face, pushing our thinking and practice forward.

The Museum of (my) Discoveries

Exhibition "Return - Traces of Memory", Monument odf the Discoveries, Lisbon, 2015 (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

I'm Portuguese by adoption. When I arrived in Portugal, in 1995, the only thing I knew about the history of the country had to do with the Discoveries (of sea routes and spices, taught in my country in the 7th or 8th grade). Over the years, I have been "discovering" the rest (even with regard to the Discoveries and beyond the sea routes and the spices). The story I was taught in school was, as usual, only one part.

Let's set Mark Deputter free

Image taken from the newspaper Público. Photo: Nuno Ferreira Santos

It was a good exercise for all of us the with conversation with the Municipal Councilor for Culture Catarina Vaz Pinto (CVP) yesterday at the Maria Matos Theatre (MMT). As it has been a good exercise all the discussion generated after the announcement of her decision to lease MMT and turn it into a for-profit space with programming for a larger public.

Still on Maria Matos: a theatre's ethos

"Have a Great day!", by Vaiva Grainytė, Lina Lapelytė, Rugilė Barzdžiukaitė (Photo: Simonas Svitra). Maria Matos Theatre, 2017

Ethos: (Greek éthos, -ous) noun
distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group or institution
Source: Merriam-Webster dictionary

Anne Pasternak became the director of the Brooklyn Museum in New York in 2015, succeeding Arnold L. Lehman, who had held the post for 18 years. Anne impressed me positively in her first interview for the New York Times when she stated: "I am excited to build on that ethos of welcome".

At the time of Pasternak's appointment, there were several voices criticising the choice of someone who had never worked in a museum before. However, this sentence, right at the end of the article in the New York Times, was enough for me to think: She got it! She understood "who" the museum she's going to work for is!

TS Elliot, a terrible hip-hop artist

A photo of the project Contratempos in the This is PARTIS programme.

The Guardian recently wrote about a critique by poet Rebecca Watts, entitled “The cult of the noble amateur”, where she attacks the work of a cohort of young female poets considering it “the open denigration of intellectual engagement and rejection of craft”. The text resulted in a very interesting, and welcome, debate regarding the value of “high” and “popular” poetry. The answer of Scottish poet Don Patterson (winner of the TS Elliot award and publisher of two of the young poets in question) was captivating: " You don’t have to like what people do, but I think you measure it against its own ambitions. Otherwise it’s like saying TS Eliot was a terrible hip-hop artist. True, but so what.”

What Maria Matos means to me (or, why did I sign the petition)

On December 17, 2017, the newspaper Público published an interview with the Councilor of Culture of Lisbon, Catarina Vaz Pinto, where it was announced that "[the theatre] Maria Matos (MM) will have a very different programming model, with longer running periods and a greater concern in attracting audiences, in order to be profitable". The news was surprising to me, to say the least. I would say more, I remember that, as I read, I felt a kind of physical pain.

Looking for sandy ground

"Free access to museums for under 30s", one reads in portuguese newspapers. The measure was approved in parliament yesterday. 

"Can anyone explain to me the logic of under 30s?", asks a Brazilian colleague.

"Is it to stimulate young families, like couples with small children?", replies another colleague. "Is it because it was found that unemployment is higher among the under 30s?"

Is it worth looking for the logic? Was there a logic? Was the measure based on any management report? Was it based on some audience survey? Were the professionals of the sector consulted? Are there concrete objectives that can be evaluated in one or two years’ time?

MAAT, a generator of expectations

Image taken from the website of MAAT.

I am still amazed at the way the recently inaugurated MAAT - Museum of Art, Architecture and Technology, designed by Amanda Levete, is integrated into the landscape. When I approach that area or when I cross the bridge from Lisbon, I always expect to see a huge building overlapping or hiding the Central Tejo power plant. But no... The Central Tejo still emerges majestically and the new building stands at its side as a smooth and fluid note.

My first contact with the new museum was back in June. In fact, it was the reopening of the "old" museum (Museum of Electricity in Central Tejo), after its renovation, and the MAAT brand was launched. Afterwards, I followed the campaign for the inauguration of the new building and I read some interviews of the museum director, Pedro Gadanho, thus forming an initial opinion / expectation. The various criticisms that arose with the opening of the building, as well as some discussions with colleagues, brought me more "food for thought", just like my first visit to the new building.

Justin Bieber and the fight against islamic extremism

The Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, and the Italian Prime Minister , Matteo Renzi (Photo: Alessandro Bianchi / Reuters, taken from the newspaper The Atlantic)

A recent NPR article, entitled Italy's 'CulturalAllowance' For Teens Aims To Educate, Counter Extremism is a clear demonstration of the confusion existing, at various levels and in various contexts, in relation to access to culture and to culture as a panacea for many ills of this world.

The title is not an exaggeration of the newspaper. It was the Italian Prime-Minister himself who said, when announcing this culture allowance (€500 for every 18-year-old to spend on cultural products), shortly after the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015: "They destroy statues, we protect them. They burn books, we are the country of libraries. They envision terror, we respond with culture."

Naming the impact: it may be Telmo or Rafael or Gustavo…

Telmo Martins, member of the Orquestra Geração (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

A few years ago, I saw the documentary Waste Land. It is about the work the Brazilian visual artist Vic Moniz created together with garbage pickers at the world’s largest garbage dump, Jardim Gramacho, in the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro. Moniz said that he wished to change the lives of a group of people with the same materials they deal with every day. So, together they used garbage to create large-size portraits of the garbage pickers, which were later sold in auction and the money was distributed among the garbage pickers. The works were presented in exhibitions in a number of contemporary art museums.

Managing museums: a portuguese case

"Panels of St. Vincent" at NMAA (image taken from the National Museum of Ancient Art Facebook page)

The claim of a new legal status, of a special status, by the National Museum of Ancient Art (NMAA) in Lisbon has resulted in a very healthy debate among museum professionals in Portugal, especially (and unfortunately) after the announcement of the Minister of Culture that this status will actually be given to the museum. Independent of our criticism, positive or negative, of this case and this process, there is no doubt that we owe this very necessary debate to the NMAA, its director, António Filipe Pimentel, and to the entire museum staff*.

Government reflections on access to culture

"MAP - The chartography game", a performace by the association A PELE (image taken from the website of the National Theatre D. Maria II)

The Culture White Paper (published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sports in March 2016) sets out how the British government will support the cultural sector in the coming years. It’s the first document of its kind in 50 years and the second ever published in the UK.

The document opens by quoting British Prime Minister, David Cameron, who states: “If you believe in publicly-funded arts and culture as I passionately do, then you must also believe in equality of access, attracting all, and welcoming all.”

So what?

“So what?”. A frequent question/reaction concerning our field, whether verbally expressed or secretly thought. It’s a legitimate question and one we are rarely available to discuss.

Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, "Retrato de Marten Soolmans" e "Retrato de Oopjen Coppit" (imagem retirada do jornal Telerama)

When I had first read the news about the joint acquisition by the Louvre and Rijksmuseum of Rembrandt’s Portrait of Marten Soolmans and Portrait of Oopjen Coppit, for €160 million, I didn’t exactly think “So what?”, but rather “Why?”. Why these two paintings? Why all that money? Once I tried to understand a bit better the importance of the paintings (whatever importance that might be, within the context of art history or any other), I was most often confronted with the adjective “rare”. The portraits are “rare”, being exhibited in public was extremely “rare, etc. etc. This brought up even more questions: Rare how? Why should they be seen more often? Why did these two public museums make such a huge (financial and collaborative) effort to acquire them?

Post scriptum

In the week of 11 May, my inbox was full of invitations for the celebration of the European Museum Night and International Day of Museums. On Facebook, it was no less tense, with museums and their governing bodies reminding us that all roads would lead to a museum. A great party atmosphere, an enormous offer all over the country, which was also translated into numbers. The media reported that there were 140 activities on the occasion of the European Museum Night (16 May) and 430 activities on International Museum Day (18 May) across 70 different Portuguese museums. The truth is that few of the activities proposed responded to ICOM challenge to reflect on “Museums for a sustainable society”. This left me thinking how museums actually perceive this yearly challenge and if it has any impact whatsoever on their practices – on Museum Day and in the rest of the year. Having said this, the richness and intensity of the programme, as well as the celebratory mood, could make one believe that the museum sector in Portugal shows clear signs of prosperity. Thus, news on 18 May of some museum staff going on strike, contesting the reduction in the payment of overtime, as well as the fact that they were obliged to work on a Monday (the day intended for weekly rest), were something of a marginal note  (watch the TV report).

Welcome, neo-cosmopolitans!

Photo: Adriano Vizoni/Folhapress (taken from Folha de S. Paulo)

"Black Presence" is an action promoted in São Paulo (Brazil) by black artists, writers and activists who visit exhibition openings in art galleries in group. They arrive one by one, they become numerous and attract the uncomfortable stares of other visitors. Because the presence of blacks (as artists and public) is not usual in these contexts. Not everyone agrees with these actions (as can be seen in the comments in the Folha de S. Paulo), but to me, this act of claiming by citizens caught my attention.

And it reminded me of another. At a conference last year, I heard Sylvain Denoncin, of the French company EO Guidage, tell the story of the Louvre - Lens. The museum was designed by Japanese architecture studio SANAA. The inhabitants of the city threatened to take the project to court if the new museum was not accessible. At that point, EO Guidage was called to intervene and remedy something that should have been thought from the first moment. In an exchange of views with a colleague on Facebook, we shared the same concern: how many generations for the citizens of this country to become more demanding in relation to access to the cultural offer of public cultural institutions?

These are two cases which raise once again the question of what is meant by "access to culture"; what culture professionals mean when they say "our doors are open" or "we are here for everyone"; the difference between the concepts of "democratization of culture" and "democratic culture".

John Holden has been quoted more than once on this blog, specifically his identification of the guardians of culture in the essay "Culture and Class" - the "cultural snobs" and the neo-mandarins (see references at the end of the text).

First point: we are still suffering from the mentality of the "cultural snob", which considers the cultural offer - certain cultural offer – to be only for the initiated. In what concerns the others – the non-initiated, the non-cultured - the option (defended less and less publicly, but present in the way we programme and communicate) is to exclude, there being nothing really one can do, since neither the family of these people nor the school had the capacity to educate them, to prepare them for this experience.

Second point: the neo-mandarins have changed the context created and defended by "cultural snobs", and have come to promote access, the democratization of culture. Although it is a different attitude, more open and inclusive, in practice it also reveals another kind of guardian. The neo-mandarins defend access, but they want to be the ones to define what is worth having access to and how. In more than one meeting lately, when the issue of "inclusion" was raised, the need for cultural spaces to be more representative of the societies in which they are inserted and more welcoming for the diverse people that make up this society, the answer varied little: it usually referred to initiatives of the education service, guided tours or shows which people attend as part of specific groups (people with disabilities, seniors, immigrants, children and adults living in social institutions, people from “underprivileged” backgrounds , etc.).

Third point: the emergence of the neo-cosmopolitans in the cultural sector, willing to give up their role as guardian and to truly open the doors for a greater collaboration and involvement of "outsiders", for making the cultural offer more representative and relevant, has also come to change this relationship with people and the way they perceive and gain ownership of cultural institutions. The goal of the neo-cosmopolitans is to move towards a more democratic culture.

In order for change to occur, the contribution of various agents is required. I will concentrate on two of them: the associations representing the groups of people referred above; and the professionals of the cultural sector.

Undoubtedly, we need to have more participative citizens, who know their rights, who ask for what’s theirs, who want to have a say on cultural institutions and access to the cultural offer. The role of associations representing certain groups of citizens is crucial here, because their voice is sometimes stronger and more respected. These associations must promote and defend the rights of their members, should intervene whenever necessary, should take into good consideration the solutions they propose and those they accept. A few months ago, an actor who would represent in a municipal theater reacted negatively to the presence of sign language interpreters in front of the stage. The theater sought alternatives and asked the Federation of the Associations of the Deaf what they thought of the solution to broadcast the play in another room, from which deaf viewers could follow the performance. The Federation considered the solution to be acceptable. It was not. No solution that discriminates against citizens and their right of access to culture is acceptable and associations should be the first to defend it.

However, there must also be a movement from within. A movement that allows to counteract snobbish attitudes; a movement that allows neo-mandarins to develop and to become neo-cosmopolitans. I believe that we will not have more demanding citizens if we have snobbish cultural professionals, professionals only prepared to repeat past recipes, without questioning them, without thinking about the next step: promoting inclusion in the medium and long term.

Citizens need to feel and see in practice that there is a different mentality on the part of the professionals, a mindset that seeks to foster the relationship with people, many people, not just the initiated, and create space for this relationship to exist and to grow, to be real and lasting. We will be more inclusive if citizens, in all their diversity, feel that the programming of public cultural institutions is relevant to them; if they feel represented and the representation entails an increased involvement; if communication is developed with a view to getting accross to them, to engage in a dialogue using a language understood by all; if our action does not promote access to the cultural offer by maintaining people in segregated groups, but by taking steps every day so that people can co-exist in the same space, enjoy the same offer. If culture professionals fail to convince people of their honest intentions to foster this relationship and to work towards a democratic culture, the offer (not culture) will continue irrelevant, and therefore non-existent, for them.

Further readings:

Interview with Martha Lavey, artistic director of Steppenwolf Theater

Interview with Eva Bornstein, director of Lehman Center


More on this blog:

A midcrisis night’s dream?

On public value

We are for people. Or... are we?

Ministry of Culture: What culture? Whose Culture?

Crise oblige? (ii) Programming challenges

Crise oblige? (iii) Management challenges

Essays by John Holden:

Capturing cultural vale (2004)

Cultural value and the crisis of legitimacy (2006)

Democratic culture (2008)

Culture and class (2010)

Guest post: "Circles of support", by Kateryna Botanova (Ukraine)

My two Ukrainian friends and colleagues, Ihor Poshyvailo and Kateryna Botanova, are the living respresentation of what their country is today. A country wishing to preserve its traditions and, through this, mark its distinct cultural identity; a country determined to look forward and outward, to mark its position in the contemporary world free of controlling ideologies and offers of “protection”. Ihor wrote a post for this blog last year . It is now Kateryna’s turn to share with us her views, anxieties and, most of all, the enormous and consistent work she and the rest of the small team of the Center for Contemporary Art have been carrying out, determined to fight their insecurities and to overcome the obstacles in order to fullfil their mission and to fully assume the responsibilities they’ve set for themselves in their country’s cultural sector. mv

SPACES: Architecture of Common, CSM, 2013. Photo by Kosti​antyn Strilets, © CSM

Ukraine is a peculiar country where the word “independent” means something quite different than elsewhere in Europe. Here, “independent culture” and “independent cultural organization” are not just free from the ideological and/or political control of the government or any other public bodies, they are also defined by being not dependent on any public financial support - because there is none.

To be an independent cultural institution in Ukraine means to write your own mandate for serving the community, to be brave enough to see the gaps in public policy in the cultural sphere and to try to fill them as best you can, and to be fully responsible for your own future - financial as well as professional.

At the Foundation Center for Contemporary Art (CSM), Kyiv, Ukraine, we start our monthly planning & sharing meetings with the question - whom are we doing this for? Our mission statement says that we work to create a platform of possibilities for cultural workers - artists, critics, architects, writers, etc. - to foster interdisciplinary communication, experimentation and innovation. But how do you do this? How do you sustain their work when there is low access to, and therefore appreciation for, culture and no public or private funding available? Who can create circles of understanding and build support for this kind of art?

CSM is an independent not-for-profit institution established in 2009, a successor to the Center for Contemporary Art established by George Soros in 1993, as part of the Soros network of art centers throughout Central and Eastern Europe. Very few of them have survived till today, mostly because of the lack of funding. CSM outlived its peers thanks to a major restructuring - from a large institution with a focus on showcasing works and artistic education to a small and mobile curatorial team aiming at experimental productions, critical discourse and audience development.

In 2010, within a year after our transformation, when we had to suddenly leave our premises at one of the capital city’s main universities and literally go underground, renting a small space at the basement level of an apartment block, Art Ukraine, one of Ukraine’s leading art magazines, included CSM in its list of top 10 art institutions in the country, highlighting “the true renaissance that CSM has gone through to again become one of the most active institutions”. We understood that the uneasy decision to continue as a small institution, based on the belief that it is possible and necessary to work in those areas that neither the corrupt state institutions, nor offensive private capital wanted to enter, was right.

SEARCH: Other Spaces. Workshop by Anton Lederer, CSM, 2012. Photo by Dmitro Shklyarov, © CSM

The idea to keep working - doing multidisciplinary projects in public spaces, launching educational and self-educational initiatives and programs, creating new spaces for artist/audience co-working, doing research in art history and cultural policy - was important. CSM was and still is an example of both resilience and producing change. As long as we work, independent cultural institutions in this country can work. It’s tough, but possible.

The further we go, the more we understand that, for the time being, major change lies in the field of creating circles of support and understanding of audiences: support of contemporary culture and the ideas it is articulating - opening access not only to cultural products, but to thinking about and understanding the world we live in through culture.

It was in 2010 when we, at CSM, also came up with the idea of launching a platform for critical reflection and understanding of contemporary cultural developments – the online journal Korydor. First created as a tool for the arts community to write and debate on events, issues and problems, within three years it grew into a journal with a monthly readership of more than 6000 people. When the decision was made this summer to launch a crowdfunding campaign for Korydor, there was much doubt and fear. Who are we talking to? Do readers of an intellectual magazine in a country with no tradition of paying for cultural products need it enough to financially support it? If we succeed, what will that support mean for Korydor? How will it change Korydor? How will it change us?

More than 200 people supported Korydor, exceeding the goal set for the campaign. In three months of campaigning we increased readership by 20%, getting more and more out of the arts community to give to the community of people who want art to be a part of their lives. Contributions were often accompanied by the following remark: “(even if we did not read you before) you are doing such an important thing, please keep it up!”

Korydor was the first media in Ukraine supported through crowdfunding. It was followed by others, like Public Radio, an independent initiative that just hit its crowdfunding goal a few days ago.

Project "Working Room", Anatoliy Belov, CSM, 2013, photo by Kost​iantyn Strilets, © CSM

CSM is taking yet another step to widen its circle of support. In three weeks, in collaboration with Kyiv-Mohyla Business School, we will launch the first special program for MBA alumni that will allow business leaders to talk with, look and listen to, and learn from Ukrainian artists of different genres and generations. We will try to think about our future together and to see how all of us can stay independent from any narrow interests and dire needs in our thinking, expression and understanding of each other.

Kateryna Botanova (Ukraine) is an art critic, curator, contemporary culture and cultural policy researcher, translator. Since 2009 she has been the director of Foundation Center for Contemporary Art (Kyiv, Ukraine), founder and chief editor of the online cultural journal KORYDOR. Member of the Board of the FLOW festival (since 2009), European Cultural Parliament (since 2007), Vienna Seminar steering group (Erste Foundation, 2012), Public Council of Junist at Andrijivsky project (since 2012), Expert committee of PinchukArtCenter Prize for Young Ukrainian Artists. Kateryna works with issues of social engagement of art and the role of art in societies’ transformative processes. She lectures on and writes about contemporary art, cultural management and cultural critique. Kateryna holds an MA in Cultural Studies from the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (Kyiv, Ukraine). In 2009 her Ukrainian translation of Edward Said’s Culture and Imperialism received the Ukrainian Book of the Year award.

Self-barometer

All photos taken from the Facebook page of Accion Poetica.

The Eurobarometer carried out a new survey on Cultural Access and Participation (full study and executive summary). The previous one had been in 2007, before the crisis hit Europe, so this recent study may give us an insight into the possible effects of the crisis on peoples habits and practices.

Speaking in very-very general terms, and in what concerns Portugal, the study shows that Portuguese participation is under the European average in all activities considered in the survey, both in terms of attendance and in terms of involvement in artistic activities. The biggest differences refer to reading a book (EU: 68%; PT: 40%), visiting a historical monument or site (EU: 52%; PT: 27%) and going to the cinema (EU: 52%; PT: 29%).

The main barrier to access referred by Europeans is lack of interest or lack of time. For the Portuguese, lack of interest was the main reason for not participating, marking a higher percentage than the european average in all activities considered in the survey. The activities that least interest the Portuguese in comparison to the rest of the Europeans are reading a book (PT: 49%; EU: 25%), visiting a museum or gallery (PT: 51%; EU: 35%) and visiting a historical monument or site (PT: 44%; EU: 28%).

The reason I want to write today about the study of the eurobarometer is not to analyze graphics and results. It is to question how we are going to interpret them and what we are going to do about them, being professionals in the cultural sector. 

The results were primarily met on Facebook and the blogosphere with pessimism or a certain fatalism; with statements such as “We are a country of uncultured” or “The Portuguese don’t want to know about it, they are not interested, they think it´s not worth it” - with some kind of implicit accusation, I thought, of the kind “Is it worth doing anything for those ignorant and ungrateful people?”.

I confess that I was full of questions, some of them permanent ones, frequently discussed in this blog, regardless of the existence of formal studies. Trying to summarize them here, I would like to consider two main issues:

Question 1: How large was the definition of “cultural participation” in the study? Did it only consider attendance and involvement in what we may call “formal cultural institutions”?

Having access to the full report and questionnaire, I was happy to see that the definition was not a narrow one (it did consider participation through the internet, activities like dancing or doing photography or handicrafts), I am just not sure if, the way the question was asked, it also helped those surveyed consider their activities in such a broad sense (how many people, for instance, would have thought that dancing at a wedding or club is a form of cultural participation?). The “Public Participation in the Arts” surveys of the American National Endowement for the Arts, carried out every four years, do give is this kind of details regarding the “what exactly; where exactly; how exactly” – all reports are available online, but check, for instance, the last full report, referring to 2008 (some highlights here), or the highlights of the 2012 survey, the full report expected to become available  2014.

Regarding especifically participation on the internet, one should highlight that the Portuguese mark above the European average in what concerns playing computer games (+11%), putting their own cultural content online (+3%), listening to radio or music / dowloading music / reading or looking at cultural blogs (all +1%). 

Question 2: Are people little interested in culture in general or in the kind of culture “formal cultural institutions” offer them? Do we programme bearing in mind people’s interests, concerns, existing knowledge, questions, needs, practical and psychological barriers that might be keeping them away? Are we ever going to question the way we are doing things and the sincerity of our statement “We are here for the people”?

Some personal facts: some times I look at the agenda of exhibitions in museums and, judging from the titles, nothing sounds exciting or interesting enough for me to go all the way and visit them; a number of concerts and interpreters, of all musical genres, are promoted as “the best in the world”, but this is simply not enough for me to make the decision to buy the ticket, as the world is so full of “best” artists; in what concerns lesser known artists, the big majority of the institutions presenting them behave as if we should already know about them, adding absolutely nothing to the title and/or name.

So this may be my problem as culture consumer. But it might also be a problem for cultural institutions that wish to communicate with me (at least, they say they do):  a problem of choosing interesting and inspiring titles; a problem of choosing subjects (meaning stories) that might appeal to a more diverse, less specialized, audience; a problem in trying to attract more using basic information that is only understood by few; and also a need (I would even say obligation) to understand what people choose to do in their free time and why. Because, when I, as a person /consumer, don´t go to your exhibition / concert / theatre play / festival, it’s not “simply” because I am uncultured, uninterested, ignorant or ungrateful (and frankly, I don’t appreciate hearing you say this about me...). It might be because someone else was more sincere in wishing to communicate with me and engage me and did a better job in getting my attention, interest and precious time.

-------------------------------

In 1996 Mexicans would, in average, read one book a year. Writer Armando Alanis Pulido, concerned with the decline of literature and poetry and with the widely held idea that poetry is opaque, difficult to read and understand, turned to city walls in an effort to make it part of people´s everyday life. He initiated a movement called Accion Poetica (Poetic Action). Since then, it has spread in about 20 Latin American countries and even crossed the Atlantic. The other day the newspaper Le Monde had this title: The walls in Latin America speak of love. Only one, unique, signature: Accion Poetica.

Still on this blog

The Louvre, my son and I

Opera and the City

Don’t shush me!

The industry of the vast minorities

On public value

We are for people. Or... are we?

Ministry of Culture: Which culture? Whose culture?

What can make the difference?

Crise oblige?(ii) Programming challenges

To be or not to be (free on Sundays)? That’s not the question

The difference between ‘more’ and ‘diverse’

Changes: are we paying enough attention?