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.”

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*.

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?

Notes of despair

Cannabis was legalised in the State of Colorado in 2012 and the first shops commercializing it opened in the beginning of this year. According to The Independent, more than half of Colorado voters believe legalizing recreational marijuana has been good for the state. At the same time, the newspaper reports that the authorities have got serious concerns due to the consumption of inappropriate dosages, either by inexperience or confusion. A college student died last month when he jumped from his balcony, after consuming six times the recommended dosage.

Guest post: "Where there is a will, there will be a well", by Sunil Vishnu (Índia)

Sunil Vishnu is the young man who went after his dream: to make theatre. Together with a friend from university he founded EVAM in 2003 in the city of Chennai, India. As an independent arts organization, EVAM is facing a number of challenges in order to survive, to grow and to maintain the quality of its work. What does this mean exactly for a theatre company in India, where governement funding is extremely low, arts philanthropy almost inexistent and there´s a general lack of interest in the arts? Well, Sunil was surprised to find out that there was a ‘well’ of interest, care and money right there for EVAM. He shares this experience and his learnings with us. mv

The EVAM team

As I started writing this piece and looked for a title I thought this inspired by original proverb line would be perfect because, for me, it describes the state of art makers today in the world. The proverb talks about the human will – the only thing which keeps an artist going, despite all the challenges he faces - and the ‘well’ – the means which enable him to create art and share it with the audience, that is funding and resources. Over the years, the will has remained the same, but the wells have eventually dried up. The latest solution is not to dig deeper in the well or find new ones, but to go to every other person in the village who has water and ask them to share it with you, in return for sharing the ownership of the dream with him. This is what the world calls crowdfunding and it’s in this context that I write this article.

So how do the independent artists and arts organizations survive and grow? Let’s look at my organization, EVAM. EVAM is a thriving arts organization with the mission of making a positive impact in the lives of people using the medium of theatre through live performances, managing artistic events and art education. As we turn 10 this year and have successfully evaded the threat of being closed down, I look at the various sources of funding we have had over the years. We started by investing our own money (2 Lakhs – 3000 USD) back in 2003. Six months later, we got our first sponsor (a private bank HSBC) and thought of adopting the advertising-driven model, where brands would look at EVAM as a means to reach out to their potential customers. Ticketing revenue and sponsorship sustained us until 2004. That year we decided to perform shows for other organizations at a given fee and also co-launched the Hindu MetroPlus Theatre Fest, the managing of live art events/fests becoming the next revenue generator. By 2009 we were into education, doing workshops and adding another source of income. All this without approaching the government - their support for the arts being weak, anyway. This was an option. Call it ego, self-esteem or fool hardiness, we wanted to make it on our own terms, never compromising the artistic output.

Then, we realized.our dreams were getting bigger, but the well was becoming dry. We  looked for different wells, but other fellow artists doing the same. It was around that time that I started my arts management fellowship at the Kennedy Center in Washington. The first big learning was arts philanthropy. India didn’t have a culture or appetite for it. There is a general apathy towards the arts and the educational system itself dubs the arts among the least preferred subjects. Nevertheless, I knew we had a ‘family’ of audiences and important people in the society who would want to contribute financially and to be part of our organization’s journey, not as a full-time investor or sponsor, but more like a ‘special appearance’ actor in a film.

That’s when the learning from the fellowship (dream big - concentrate on great art - share the dream with your family - make them part of it) came to the forefront: my family members could not sponsor a show of mine, but they could give some money as individuals for a specific project if they believed in it. It was at that time, in 2012, that an NGO called Nalandaway launched a new online crowdfunding portal, Orange Street, which offered artists a platform to put up projects related to a cause and seek funding. Initially, I was sceptical about it. Why would an audience member, who currently spends  1000 Rupees (16 USD) a year to watch my plays, give me money to create something if they could give directly to the cause? But we went ahead and made a video explaining what we were doing and why we were seeking funds. Our project was the creation of a play, Shekinah Jacob’s The long way home, which we would perform across India, spreading awareness about child trafficking.

We needed 5 lakhs (8000 USD) to do the project. Within hours from putting it up on the platform, someone invested  5000 Rupees (80 USD) and we were awestruck. Within one day we got 7500 Rupees (120 USD) from people we didn´t even know! At the same time, we started an internal campaign: we started calling, sending e-mails or texting all our stakeholders, people we knew, audience members; we also put an ad on Facebook, Twitter and our website. Slowly and steadily contributions increased, this was actually possible!

But the time came when we had made every possible contact and the well seemed to be drying once again. My staff was busy creating this show and doing many other things and had no more time to run this campaign. The momentum dipped and we thought “OK, maybe this is all we can do”. 

That’s when a music band,  Jersey Rhythms, called us from New Jersey and said: “Hey, we want to contribute, we´ll do a charity show for you!”.  We were stupefied! A group from Jersey who we didn’t know us, was actually following our campaign in India and wanted to contribute! Suddenly, my organization realized that this movement was bigger than just the 9 of us in this office. We picked up once again and made sure this fundraising campaign became part of our daily rigour: we had a bell in the office ringing every time a new donation would come in. In the following 2 months Jersey Rhythms raised more than 75000 Rupees (1200 USD). The long way home was created and performed across India, managing to raise awareness regarding the cause it aimed to support.

We had found a new source of energy, enthusiasm and funds. Our family (namely the audience, partnering organizations, individuals who care for us, sponsors, etc.) was willing to invest in our projects in their own small way, if we were open to sharing our dream with them. A year later, in 2013 and once again through crowdfunding, we were able to send 150 underprivileged children to a summer arts camp. Our aim for 2014 is to launch a crowdfunded film and play which will be purely ‘art for art’s sake and not art for a cause’. This will be a true trust of the theory that maybe crowdfunding is the first big step in the direction of arts philanthropy in India.

In the meanwhile, here are a few of my learnings on this journey:

If you want to create projects based on crowdfunding

a) Create a genuine project – put it on a genuine site, don’t phaff! (people can see right through a fake project);

b) Create a strong ASK – what’s the project, who does it impact and how, why are you doing it and where are funds going to be utilized, and hence why should anyone donate for the project;

c) Always have a limited time frame for the fundraising – depending on the size of the amount to be raised (3 months to 1 year); also, be specific about what you´re asking (egg. “Please invest 500 Ruppess for the project by 15^th Jan 2013”);

d) Don’t make this the only source of funding for your project;

e) Use the equity of the platform (the site) to generate more awareness;

f) Note down the names of people who invest and follow up with them, thanking them. Make them part of the project in the way they prefer to (could be as simple as sending e-mail updates to as much as coming and doing backstage for free!);

g) Don’t be ashamed to ask for money – you are asking people to share your dream, it´s an investment they are making; actually they are as good as co-producers of the project;

h) People have a need to feel ‘connected’ and ‘counted’ – make sure you give the people both through this relationship;

i) Create a communications plan and rope in various key game-changers who can endorse your project; celebrities are welcome…;

j) Internally, keep your team motivated, give them incentives to run; reward them, acknowledge them – it’s quite a thankless job otherwise!

People will contribute when:

a) They love you as a person and want to be part of your journey;

b) They love your organization and its mission;

c) They believe in the impact your project will create on people;

d) They can’t do what you do – hence they want to live your life vicariously!

As I said earlier, where there is a will, there is a well.  Go and keep digging wells, but don’t forget the rivers and streams and ponds and seas which are the people around us. Invite your family to be part of your journey, you will be surprised with the love and trust they will shower on you!

Sunil Vishnu K is co-founder, CEO and artistic director of  EVAM, an award-winning theatre entrepreneurship. Founded in 2003 by Sunil and Karthik Kumar, EVAM is today a 10-year-young thriving arts business which performs plays, manages live art events and works in arts education. Sunil receveid the Performing Arts Entrepreneur Award from the British Council in 2010 and completed the Summer Arts Management Fellowship at Devos Institute of Arts Management at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in 2013.

A midcrisis night´s dream?

I like the word ‘campaign’, it transmits to me the feeling of an ongoing effort to promote a cause. I don´t like that much the word ‘manifesto’, I tend to associate it to a momentary action, using big abstract words and doing little after. So, I got very curious the other day when I read a subtitle in a Guardian article explaining that “What Next? campaign aims to promote public investment in the arts by making culture a ‘manifesto issue’” (nothing unusual in this, of course, it´s just my prejudice regarding the two words...).

So the article talked about a movement slowly being created by leaders of arts organisations since 2011. They´ve been meeting every Wednesday (just in London, though) and at the time the article was published, they were getting ready for their first large-scale public event. Their main goals: to get every MP involved in the work of their local arts organisations; to draw in the campaign local councillors, businessmen, school and college directors; to harness the voices of audiences, visitors, members. In the words of Alistair Spalding, artistic director of Sadler's Wells theatre, the long-term aim of What Next? is to "actually get the public to understand the value of culture, so that it becomes a manifesto issue… One of the primary aims, which the arts hasn't yet achieved, is to get the public on our side."

I saw a plan here. One that took time to build, but people (arts leaders) worked on it consistently and with a purpose. I am very interested to see how they are now going to go about meeting their goals, one of which particularly cought my attention: “to harness the voices of audiences, visitors, members”. At a time when the British government is once again aiming to pursue culture´s instrumental values (has any government ever given more money to culture because of its – proven - economic benefits?), the What Next? campaign wants to get people on their side, to harness their voices. But, there´s one issue for me here: What are the people expected to talk about? What is the value of culture the campaigners want to ‘get the public to understand’?

John Holden, in his essay Cultural value and the crisis of legitimacy, puts the essence of all this in just a few words: “The answer to the question ‘why fund culture?’ should be ‘because the public wants it’”. Are we ever going to reach this point? Maybe, if cultural professionals started listening (instead of trying to make people understand) and then got involved in a real debate, concentrating on issues that are important for both sides and speaking a language everyone understands. Most people do appreciate a form of cultural expression and they know why it is important in their lives, they know why they value it, they know why they couldn´t live without it. They also know what makes them feel uncomfortable, what is the kind of attitude that makes them feel excluded or unwelcome, what is not for them, for one reason or another.  So, let´s ask them, instead of trying to impose our views, make them understand or tell them what we think is good for them. Let´s listen and then share with them our views on why and how we think our offer meets their needs. Let´s identify our common ground, work together, campaign for something that we all value.

This makes me, inevitably, think of Portugal. In the last two or three years the cultural sector saw the emergence of a couple of so-called movements, more than one manifestos - the usual big and abstract words -, but no ‘aftermath’. There was no careful building of a campaign, no specific goals were either announced or pursued, no consistent and permanent action undertaken. What we share in public is our frustration or fury for losing public funds; our amazement at the fact that people are not coming to see our top quality performance (“don´t they get it?”); our conviction that they don´t care about culture (or rather the ’right’ culture). Is this a way of making friends...? Is this the way of establishing common ground?

Composer António Pinho Vargas wrote on Facebook one of this days (the post was re-published here) that he never uses the word ‘sustainability’ and he is obliged to hear and read it almost every day. I like to read him and I don´t disagree with the general point of his post. I don´t share his feelings and thoughts, though, regarding the word ‘sustainability’, probably because I don´t understand it the way he does: that everything has to pay for itself. And he was questioning: “Can culture be suatainable?”.

This is not what sustainability means when it comes to the cultural sector. Culture alone will never pay for itself, because it´s not a product that becomes more profitable with time (we need the same number of musicians as in the 19^th century to perform Mahler´s symphonies; a concert hall has a specific number of seats and doesn´t grow in order to sell more tickets; etc., etc.). Costs of production and performance keep growing in the cultural sector, while we need to keep the price of tickets at affordable levels. So, our efforts to be sustainable mean that we need to try and fill the always growing gap between expenditure and income (and to depend on one income source is not a good idea, it never was).

This effort has got everything to do with people, the relationship we establish and nurture with society. Sustainability is not about money in the first place; it´s about people. In order to be able to say one day that culture must be funded “because the public wants it”, we still need to work a lot on this relationship. First we need to listen and better understand what people value in their diverse cultural participations.  Following this, our attitude, choices, priorities, the way we speak should unequivocally transmit our wish and will to include them. Our mission should be clear to all, our plans transparent, our choices understandable. And we should be accountable for our actions. This relationship should be about sharing, not imposing. This relationship can only exist because of something we all value.

Still on this blog:

Ministry of Culture: Which culture? Whose culture?

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

So, what´s the plan?
On public value

 

Guest post: "A question of value", by Rebecca Lamoin (Australia)

More readings:
John Holden, Capturing cultural value
John Holden, Culture and Class

Guest post: "One can´t make omelets without breaking eggs - Regarding the project Temporary Occupations", by Elisa Santos (Maputo - Mindelo - Lisbon)

I enjoyed very much listening to Elisa Santos talking about the Temporary Occupations. Projects like this one, which bring people together around an idea, which look for new ways, which make things happen ‘despite’, they always draw my attention, they transmit enthusiasm to me, they remind me that a lot, so much indeed, is possible when people want to. But there is a limit and Elisa is determined to remind us of it. There is a limit that the will to do should not surpass; because we have a responsibility and because we owe respect, to the works, to the artists and to the audiences. mv 

On Jaimito´s Facebook, 24th of July Av., Maputo, 2011. A citizen is leaving a comment on artist Azagaia´s installation.  (Photo: Ocupações Temporárias)

It is a fallacy, one frequently used in these times of scarce resources, to assume that it is possible to do without means, crossdressing the argument with epithets of innovation and entrepreneurship. The whole exaltation, more or less naive, more or less politcally adjusted, that it is this “magic” that will save us, is a serious contribution towards disinformation, decapitalization and the implementation of a strategy of mediocrity, in any field. This is my firm conviction. And it is equally firm with regards to any field, but even more in what concerns the artistic and cultural field in particular.  

In 2010 I challenged a group of six Mozambican artists to make an exhibition in different molds than the ones they were used to and as an answer to a pressing issue in the city of Maputo which they themselves were proclaiming: the suffocation felt by artists, caused by the lack of spaces of presentation (the existing ones have a closed and repetitive programming) and of audiences (equally closed and repetitive). This suffocation was not related to the quantity of woks produced, but to the incentives for creation, since the spaces for critique, the opportunities for discussion, for the exchange and contact with new languages, tecniques and issues seemed to bypass the circuit of presentation of the capital of Mozambique.

Meeting with artists for the 2010 edition. (Photo: Ocupações Temporárias)

To make an exhibition, or rather six exhibitions, in two months, with a coordination/production totally unknown to the local agents and possible funders, with a group of artists doing a number of other things that would guarantee their living and without an institution formally promoting it, can it be considered venture without means? It may seem like it, but it´s not. The first “version” of Temporary Occupations  - this is the project name – was discussed in meetings on a esplanade, was produced on coffee shop tables and using free public Wi-Fi; its opening date was set to coincide with the Jo’burg Art Fair, in the (perhaps naive) hope that curators, commissioners, buyers, collectors that would attend the event might become interested in Maputo, just around the corner; Facebook and a blog were the main means of promotion and communication. These were the means available. The artists themselves put their own means at the disposal of the project. The first Occupations had a financial support of 3.000USD. In our final report we accounted for the pro bono contributions (production, design and translation, for example), but we were never able to account for all the means that were made available in order to make the Occupations happen.

In 2011 we wanted to risk again. We thought that it would be easier to raise funds, because we had a file that proved our seriousness and transparency in managing the project, the involvement of the participants and the sustainability of the idea, which did not have as a base a fixed, heavy and expensive structure estructure and that, above all, there was a need, that is, it was not a commitment imposed by a calendar, but an action justified in the city´s artistic and cultural context. All arguments were acknowledged, we were praised and pointed out as an interesting case – both in what concerns the essence of the project and its management -, nevertheless, the financial resources, in particular the funds for international cooperation, are aimed at reinforcing institutions and civil society, where we did not fit because we were not a legal entity, that is, the project was not based on a formal organization, did not correspond with the calendars of funding allocations, did not guarantee its existence for the next year. Even though, we persisted and the subject chosen for the Temporary Occupations 20.11 was Precariousness.  The opening took place on the 11^th of September and we had the support of Goethe Institut in Maputo and the Swiss Embassy, in a total of €2000.

View of artist Paulo Kapela´s installation in the streets of Maputo, 2012. (Photo: Ocupações Temporárias)

The conditions for this version of the Occupations were even harder than the previous year´s, nevertheless, it mobilized the artists of 2010 and those of 2011, and once again friends, acquaintances, strangers who had seen us the year before and, once more, there was a lot of investment (also financial) on behalf of those involved. The result was very positive, but, as an international commissioner said, it had reached the limit of what was possible, of what was acceptable. Because there is a limit for the dignity (of the works, of the artists, of the audiences) assessed according to the conditions of presentation, of production and enjoyment of an exhibition.  

In 2012, the Temporary Occupations, under the theme of Foreigners, finally had what one might call “the means”, thanks to the exclusive funding of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, which decided to support the exhibition in Maputo and to propose and promote it in two more countries (Cape Vert and Angola) and also to schedule in 2013, in its head office in Lisbon, a documental exhibition of the whole process. Without these resources, without this support, the Occupations in Maputo wouldn´t have happened, not in the molds they did actually happen, not even in the molds of previous editions. It wouldn´t have been possible to insist on askingalways  for the support of the same people just to prove that we have the capacity to make things happen, when this capacity, although acknowledged in theory, did not get in return the support of those institutions which aim to support this kind of initiatives. Without these means, the Occupations would have terninated in 2011.

All the editions fulfilled the initial objectives: to attract the attention of different audiences that would be confronted with the works in the public space; to confront the artists with new spaces. Although it is not possible to count the number of visitors, the works have undeniably been seen by thousands if people. Another, more specific, audience - that of cultural agents, artists and arts students – also saw the Occupations and there was a lot of conversation, discussions and stands regarding the initiative. To prove this, one may consider the interest expressed regarding the dates and themes of the following edition, the ways to apply, as well as the invitations to talk or write about this initiative.

Although the Temporary Occupations were seen, since their first edition, at distance, from a number of programmers, critics, curators, gallery owners and other artists, we have not managed to gain international notoriety, to draw the attention of new markets, namely the south african one, to give national visibility to the production of contemporary art; these were very big challenges that we wouldn´t be able to reach when the big majority of promotional materials was not translated, there were no catalogues of all the editions, there was not a good technical support or good images of the works, there was not a website or a good archive, allowing to access the information and the documentation of the different exhibitions.

Installation by artist Bento Oliveira at the Porto Grande airport on S.Vicente island, Cape Vert, 2012. (Photo: Ocupações Temporárias)

The great importance of the support received for 2012 and 2013 is exactly the fact that it made available financial and other resources, that made the exhibitions and other actions possible in order to internationalize the artists and to give visibility to a new production stemming from the emergence of an artistic community with new practices, different discourses and other proposals of intervention.  

As I stated in the beginning, the praise of the lack of resources as a potential instigator of creation and production, is false, and it may even become dangerous in what concerns the quality and independence of what is being produced.  The Temporary Occupations would be different with more means, with other menas, but would have never existed, as nothing exists, without means.

The exhibition Temporary Occupations – Documents may be seen at the Gulbenkian Foundation in Lisbon until May 26. Admission is free.

Elisa Santos was an independent cultural producer until 2002, when she took the post of Director of Production at the Teatro do Campo Alegre in Oporto. She worked in projects of cooperation and development in Angola and Mozambique between 2003 and 2012. She is a consultor in the fields of volunteering and cooperation, maintaining her activity as producer in the cultural field.

Liverpool-Lens-Metz-Foz Coa and back

Image taken from the Louvre-Lens Facebook page

When one thinks about the role of culture in urban regeneration the case of Liverpool comes immediately to mind, as well as the work of J. Pedro Lorente in analyzing this and other case studies of cities which attempted a revival, more or less successfully, through culture and the arts. In the introduction of the working paper The role of museums and the arts in the urban regeneration of Liverpool (1996), Lorente writes: “... any derelict area in the heart of a prosperous city is bound to be revitalized by urban developers anyway. However, the prospects of redevelopment are less likely when dereliction lays in the middle of a declining city facing economic recession, unemployment, depopulation, social/ethnic unrest and physical decay. (...) Liverpool is such a case: in the last decades, everything seems to have gone wrong there, except the arts (...)”.

In a way, Lens seems to be such a case too. It is a former mining town of 35.000 people in the north of France, proud of its football team and hit hardly by the crisis. Lens is also, since December 4, home to the new Louvre-Lens, presenting objects from the parisian museum´s collection, including highlights such as Delacroix´s Liberty leading the People. In his speech at the inauguration ceremony, French President François Hollande used words such as “regional development”, “cultural decentralization”, “cultural democracy” and seemed confident that visitors will be coming from the whole region, the whole of France, the whole of Europe and maybe the whole world (the annual target at this moment is 500.000 visitors; 100.000 visited the museum in less than three weeks after its opening). On the other hand, Louvre President Henri Loyrette explained in an interview for the newspaper El País: “[when deciding on the location] what interested me was that it could have a social character, not [to be] a city with culture. This is an industrial zone, very much affected by unemployment and which suffered in all wars. It is a kind of reparation.”

We are quite used to listening to politically correct statements, for which almost noone is ever held accountable for in the years that follow, but a museum that aims to compensate a region for its hardships is a new concept for me. I read numerous articles and reports regarding this new museum, some of which may be found at the end of this text, but I would like to highlight three of them, which, in my opinion, raised some important questions.

On the french blog Option Culture, Jean-Michel Tobelem analyses the three challenges the museum is asked to face – attendance, territorial impact and democratisation – and argues: 1. although access is good and exhibitions are of high quality, the building will not be enough to attract the large number of visitors those wishing for a “Bilbao effect” are dreaming of; 2. even if visitors come in great numbers, he doubts there will be an opportunity for wealth creation if there is no infrastructure (hotels, restaurants, commerce, etc.) that would respond to those visitors´ needs and make them want to stay longer and spend more; 3. he also doubts that the chronological approach adopted in the Gallery of Time, the educational activities proposed and open storage would actually be able to attract what we generally call “new” visitors. Bernard Hasquenoph also criticised official references to cultural democracy and decentralisation by making a point in his article Louvre-Lens: la culture comme alibi that the region where Lens is situated could harldy be considered a “victim” in terms of cultural offer and quoted the Louvre´s President who actually said that Lens is a town in a “... region with a reputation for its exceptional cultural dynamism and the density of its museum network”. Finally, Jonathan Jones of The Guardian warns that The Louvre risks losing its magic with Lens move and calls the move “political correcteness gone mad”. He urges british museums not to make the same mistake and to continue forging links and promote loans between the capital and the regions.

These three texts resume my views on this subject. Lens is an hour away from Paris by train. Does it really make sense (in the name of “cultural decentralisation and democracy” or as a means of making amends...) to break up a world famous collection, visited by millions of people living in France and also coming from abroad, in order to take it closer to people that could easily have access to it? And if this is not the case for all (which probably isn´t), wouldn´t it make more sense to make transport to Paris more accessible to all those interested in visiting the museum? Furthermore, in a region that seems to have already got a rich cultural offer, wouldn´t it make more sense to support existing structures and their links to the capital? Or, if it was actually considered that it was the right time and place to create a new cultural venue, wouldn´t it be more appropriate, in competitive terms as well, to create something unique and distinctive of that region? Finally, if decisions were made in the name of regional development, is the museum expected to perform a miracle on its own, when basic, complementary infastructures are still not in place?

Image taken from the Pompidou-Metz  Facebook page.

The case of Pompidou-Metz, which opened in 2010 with quite similar objectives announced by the then French President Nicolas Sarkozy, also comes to mind: a town that didn´t form part of the usual touristic tracks, a bit more than an hour away from Paris by train; a town with a rich cultural offer; a museum that was set up in an area  previously given to industry, as part of a plan to boost tourism; a number of highways that opened in the meantime in order to facilitate access. Still, less than three years later, the museum failed to reach its objective of 600.000 visitors for 2012 (read here). Has something gone wrong? Is there an explanation for this? Is anyone evaluating this case at a time when a new museum opens apparently set to serve a similar vision?

And with all this, I feel compelled to ask: what about Foz Côa? This is one of my favourite places in Portugal. I visited the prehistoric engravings sites in 1999 and 2000. In 2011 I went back, this time to visit the museum too, which had opened the year before. Although the whole project was seen as a major factor in the region´s development (and it probably does attract more people to it), the truth is that the only novelty I encountered was the museum itself, where, on a Sunday afternoon of November, I was the only visitor. The museum café was closed and I had to go back to town and face the almost impossible task of finding something to eat at a place that looked deserted and which still hasn´t got e decent hotel (or restaurant, for that matter) that would make people consider spending the night there. Moreover, considering the touristic traffic in river Douro, the plans to create a connection to the boats have still not materialized, that is, there is still not a quay and a cable car that would allow those visitors to get to the museum and visit the prehistoric sites.

Photo: José Paulo Ruas (taken from the Museu do Côa Facebook page)

I am not an expert in urban regeneration, so I can only express an opinion based on some readings and on my experience as a visitor as well. And it seems to me that, just like a swallow does not make a spring, it takes more than a museum to guarantee the sustainable development of a town, a city, a region. There is a lot to learn from the cities that were able to manage this successfully. It took more than culture. And it took more than politically correct statements. There is a need, above all, for a strong political commitment and for the joining of public and private forces towards a clear common goal. Arts was not the only thing that didn´t go wrong in Liverpool...

More readings

Louvre-Lens: helping a mining town shed its image, by Oliver Wainwright (The Guardian, 5 December 2012)

The Louvre comes to town, by Edwin Heathcote (The Financial Times, 7 December 2012)

L´ouverture du Louvre-Lens, par Didier Rykner (La Tribune de l´Art, 4 Décembre 2012)

Louvre-Lens: lanaissance d´ un musée (Le Monde, 5 Décembre 2012)

Le Louvre-Lens ouvre ses portes au public (Le Figaro, 12 Décembre 2012)
Le Louve Lens, le succès en dépit des grincheux (Lunettes Rouges, 11 Janvier 2013) 

Les musées se remettent en scène, para Valérie Duponchelle (Le Figaro, 7 Décembre 2012)

What's the big idea behind the Pompidou-Metz?, Jonathan Glancey, (The Guardian, 6 April 2010)

Centre Pompidou: Metz gears up for its moment, Natasha Edwards (Telegraph, 8 May 2010)

Museu do Côa, por António Martinho Baptista (Informação ICOM.PT, Nº 16, Mar-Maio 2012)

Amigos do Parque e Museu do Côa, por José Manuel Costa Ribeiro (Côavisão – Cultura e Ciência, Nº 12, 2010)

World-leading urban regeneration expert: “Liverpool has assets most cities would die for”, Liverpool Daily Post 9 Nov 2012

We built way too many cultural institutions during the good years, by Emiy Badger (The Atlantic Cities, 5 July 2012)
Philharmonie de Paris: a grand design turned £300m 'bottomless pit', by Angelique Chrisafis (The Guardian, 30 December 2012)
Mais e novos museus, por Joana Sousa Monteiro (Mouseion, 7 Janeiro 2012)

Videos

Inauguration du musée Louvre-Lens

Louvre-Lens: La Gallerie du Temps

Le Journal du Temps: Lens, le Havre et une seule cause (André Malraux inaugure le premier musée – Maison de la Culture en 1961)

Guest post: "Festivals, the new face of Zimbabwe", by Nicholas Moyo

It´s always a great pleasure having a conversation with Nicholas Moyo. Not only because of his sense of humour, but mainly because of his wisdom and experience, his calm and balanced way of analyzing the realities around him, his belief in a better future. In this post he writes about the proliferation of arts festivals in Zimbabwe and the efforts of the National Arts Council to create some guidelines in order to ensure that all arts festivals are held in accordance with the country’s aspirations as far as the development of the creative industries is concerned. mv

Intwasa Arts Festival (Photo taken from www.intwasa.org) 

The establishment of Arts Festivals in Zimbabwe has been in the past decade the in-thing for the exhibition of arts and culture products in the Southern African country. As much as people can agree on what a festival is, in Zimbabwe an arts-related festival is projected as a platform for the celebration of the arts, where artistes and cultural practitioners come together for a specific period to showcase their products in a carnivalesque and celebratory mood.

The above definition holds because festivals are, in general, a time for celebration and enjoyment. It is an event usually and ordinarily staged by communities focusing on some unique aspects of that group of people. As far as the arts and culture sector is concerned, each festival is moulded around a particular group of people. These then make the nucleus of the market or audiences thereof.

Current scenario

There are just about twenty five festivals in Zimbabwe: six international, eight national, six provincial and five district festivals. Most of these festivals started in the last decade, when the generality of the political landscape was on a meltdown, especially the economy.

Within the said period, Zimbabwe witnessed a proliferation of arts festivals, being hosted country-wide. Admittedly, some of the these were established to deal with issues related to human rights. Others were hosted by fly-by-night festival organisers out to fleece funds from the ‘easy to appease’ donors. This scenario resulted in the National Arts Council of Zimbabwe starting a consultation with the sector, crafting some general guidelines for all arts festivals to be held in the country. The guidelines were meant to ensure that all arts festivals are held in tandem with the country’s aspirations as far as the development of the creative industries is concerned.

Harare International Festival of the Arts (Photo taken from www.hifa.co.zw)

Successes

Festivals are in general a massive platform created for the establishment of a transaction between audiences and the organisers through the trading of art. Firstly, all festivals have been recording a steady increase of audiences every year. There is a growing market and a new relationship between this market and the creative sector. Audiences are beginning to exchange their time and monetary resources for good art.

Secondly, art creators have found it important and necessary to create new and exciting ‘good art’, while producers, directors and artists have begun to up the game because of the competitive nature of the creative industry. Festival organisers are contracting new productions mostly from reputable producers, as these tend to attract more people to specific productions.

Harare International Festival of the Arts (Photo taken from www.hifa.co.zw)

Challenges

The creative industries have had a fair share of market challenges. Top of the list is failure to attract meaningful partnerships that will either render financial support to the festival or underwrite even in kind some of its components. Some festival organisers are not well skilled to scout and sign-in partners, leading to failure to lock-in regular dates on the calendar. Thus, one tends to see festivals having to cancel dates they could only go ahead with only if they could get a last-minute funder.

Sponsors, especially from the corporate sector, have not been forthcoming generally for the support of the arts. Festivals are not an exception. Some, like the Harare International Festival for the Arts (HIFA), have created business synergies with the Corporates. One is tempted to say that the economic challenges Zimbabwe is facing as a nation have a bearing on the money circulating for the purpose of entertainment. The disposable income of Zimbabwe’s workforce is below the poverty line, and, therefore, this on its own has a global effect on people´s buying or spending patterns.

Intwasa Arts Festival (Photo taken from www.intwasa.org)

In conclusion, festivals in Zimbabwe are a necessary good in the development of the creative industries in the country. With the different thrust by different festivals, it is evident that these are carefully designed to target particular consumers for specific artistic products. However, the festivals need to be re-engineered as business enterprises for the creative products. The growth of festivals in Zimbabwe will also ensure that the arts are undoubtedly seen as a contributor to the GDP of the Southern African country Zimbabwe.

Nicholas Moyo is currently the Deputy Director at the National Arts Council of Zimbabwe. He has substantial experience in arts management - as a director, producer and administrator. He has also participated in various arts training programs and short courses, including script writing, arts management, leadership, directing, and fundraising. He has expertise in leadership, team building and management, program management, project planning and management, financial management, strategic planning and review. He founded the fast growing and second largest multi-disciplinary festival in Zimbabwe, Intwasa Arts Festival koBulawayo, and currently sits on the Board of Trustees. He is also a Board Member of Tusanani Cover Trust, a welfare support organization for underprivileged children. Nicholas Moyo was one of the consultants for the first arts and culture festival of Zambia, the AMAKA Arts Festival, which took place from 8 to 14 of October.

So, what´s the plan?

To Mónica Calle and Alexandra Gaspar, and also to Luís Tinoco; who might not share these views, but they, nevertheless, inspire them.

Every meeting, seminar or conference I´ve attended in the last months had the words ‘crisis’ and ‘challenge’ included somewhere: the theme, a panel, some communications. It could be a positive sign. It could mean that we are aware of the critical situation we´re confronted with and wish to tackle it, face it. We wish to react and take the future in our hands.

But it could also mean... nothing. Just nothing. As in all those occasions rarely did I hear concrete ideas and proposals. I heard criticism (usually of government decisions); I heard demands (usually addressed to the government); I heard the same things we´ve been saying for years now (usually about the government´s responsibilities and obligations, about how important we are, how underfunded and neglected and undervalued by government and society alike, although they should all know better...).

Could it be that the greatest challenge of all is to put an end to all this? To the repetitions, to our myopia, to self-pity, to our inertia? Because we are illuded if we think that we act when we just demand from others, when we just concentrate on the responsibilities of others, when we just try to keep things from getting worse (that is, even worse, because they had never been that good). What are our responsibilities? What´s our role in all this? What are our ideas, our priorities? In brief, what´s our plan?

It´s our responsibility, part of our role, to contol and criticize the governement. To demand that it fulfills its obligations towards the citizens (although many times it looks as though we forget about them and only demand for ourselves and ‘our’ institutions). It´s easy too, though, if we plan to do just that. But it doesn´t really take us anywhere. Governments, politicians, ministers, do not necessarily have a plan... But we must have one. Not only should we take this on as part of our job, but it should also be expected of us.

Firstly, from everything I´ve seen and heard and read lately, I would say that one of the most worrying things we should think about is that we are still so cut off from society. Comfortable and haughty and sure of ourselves in our role of guardians, we still fail to understand that the people we are supposed to be working for - I am referring to the citizens, many of whom, let´s not forget it, voted for the party that formed the current government and which had announced during the campaign the end of the Ministry of Culture -; so, these people are looking for dialogue and not for lectures; they wish to be partners and not to be ordered about; the want to feel at home and not as if they were trespassing; they want to undestand and not to be dealing with an elite club. Ignoring all this is signing our irrelevance sentence.

A second point I would like to make is the urgent need to consider and start working on alternative sources of funding. Depending on one source has not proved to be a good idea. Insisting that this source continues to flow without looking at the same time for alternatives reveals, at the least, a certain stubbornness, little productive. Overcoming our allergy to talking about making money is an essential part of this process. Cultural institutions are not for profit, but this doesn´t mean they shouldn´t be making a profit. It´s that profit they would be able to reinvest in their activity and manage to go further, to do more.

Both first and second points, which are closely related (that is, the foundations of the financial sustainability of cultural institutions are also based on their relationship with society), lead to a third one: the need for these processes to be led by adequately prepared professionals. Would you trust your defence in court in a non-professional lawyer? Your health in a non-professional doctor? The construction of your house in a non-professional engineer? With all respect to amateurs and enthusiasts, who are absolutely fundamental in our field, how can the cultural sector still not look for the appropriate professionals for each job? How can we ever build trust and confidence in our dealings with other sectors, essential for our sustainability, if we are not adequately prepared?

And one final and indispensable point: speak truth to power. It´s not an exclusive portuguese phenomenon the fact that many (most?) leaders prefer to be surrounded by ‘yes-men’. Some weeks ago, on the occasion of the dismissal of Liz Forgan, Chair of Arts Council in England, by the Secretary of State for Culture, Jeremy Hunt, Dany Louise was writing in her blog: “The basic principle is that if you want good – or even excellent – governance, you don’t surround yourself with yes-men and yes-women, but with capable intelligent thinking professionals and an environment that values and enables those capabilities. You encourage them to tell you when you are misguided or making the wrong decision, and you expect them to come up with viable alternatives. You do this because it is the critical factor in making you a really good leader, one who makes the best possible judgements.” (it´s worth reading the complete text here).

“Crisis” in greek means, in the first place, a decisive point, a crucial point, a turning point. A crisis presents us with challenges and also opportunities for change. This is the moment to evaluate the situation, to define objectives, to set priorities. All too often, the distance between declarations of intentions and putting those intentions into practice is quite big and rarely covered. This sector needs to identify those able to cover this distance, to move things forward. This sector also needs to identify those who understand the notion of 'accountability'*. Good leaders will need to look for the best consultants. And the best consultants must be given the space to speak their minds up. Freely, objectively, responsibly.

* Accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for actions, products, decisions and policies, including the administration, governance and implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting consequences (Source: Wikipedia)

Still on this blog

We are for people. Or... are we?
Ministry of Culture: Which culture? Whose culture?
La crise oblige?  (i) Some questions
La crise oblige  (ii)  Programming challenges
La crise oblige?  (iii)  Management challenges
Ministry of Culture: Can we keep the debate going for a second week?

The 21st John Hopkins International Fellows in Philanthropy Conference will be taking place in Lisbon, at the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, on 4 and 5 July. The conference theme is Arts and economic crisis – Opportunities for the third sector? (conference programme)