Considerations and reflections by Hatto Fischer

The outcome of this workshop stresses the relationship between 'culture' as evaluation criteria and the importance of maintaining 'cultural diversity' within in Europe. This has to take place at all levels through purposeful exchange programmes avoiding sameness and loss of 'artistic freedom'. Weaknesses in implementing 'cultural actions' occur when the arts no longer lead the administration (Michael Longley) and ideas relevant to furthering the cultural understanding are aborted due to short-term political thinking. As Eric Antonis points out, the participants feel to be but at the beginning of evaluating projects and ideas like the cultural capital for Europe. There is an agreement that a very difficult debate lies ahead if any progress is to be made in advancing purposeful ideas in terms of 'cultural diversity'. In that sense, the tenth workshop of the Fifth Seminar reinforces as a concern, but also as a consensus on values the major theme of both the Brugge seminar and what Andre Loeckx spoke about in his paper on "The Culture of Ambivalence".

Along those thematic lines more specific questions have to be developed, in order to discover the 'sujets' of future cultural developments. As impetus for 'cultural actions', they are important ingredients of cultural awareness for the needs of people to readjust to changing conditions, i.e. the inhabitants of the village Kamilari in Crete. Equally, advanced ideas by the government of the Flemish Community such as musical festivals throughout Europe indicate at least the wish of that particular government, that the arts become again involved in diplomacy, that is, as 'cultural ambassadors' of regional economic interests. Altogether this workshop dealt with a wide range of topics in the most competent manner. The materials and ideas provided speak really for themselves. The main task appears to be how to ensure that the European Union gives in future a higher priority to cultural matters rather than subordinate everything to technocratic and economic interests. Although some institutional changes have occurred, such as the creation of sections called 'Europe of Cultures' at the Royal Academy of Belgium in Brussels, it must be realised that the scope of ideas in that direction is not endless. A substantial break-through is really needed, if a European cultural movement is to exert any significant influence upon decision making in Brussels and elsewhere.

Specifically, the following topos can provide an overview and hence a possibility to draw some conclusions:

- the role of artists and intellectuals in Europe:

Vangelis Kassos touched upon it. He spoke about the newly created "public space" by the Maastricht Treaty. The ramifications of that go beyond a mere signing of a treaty, for cultural manifestations by intellectuals need to be re-examined in the light of what kind of political pressures are developing currently, i.e. the worries of Italian Journalist that the take-over of members of the Neo-fascistic Party of television and radio shows brings about a new kind of uniformity and disciplining of communication channels. Whether or not European intellectuals find their "voice" or obtain it by gaining a position within a special European parliament created for them, that is an evaluation of a proposal made, in order to overcome the different roles intellectuals can play (advisor to the prince, prophet or critical one).

Practical philosophy and ethics, in a combination with becoming a 'policy advisor', these are crucial elements of politics which has to rely on 'independent' sources of information. In Workshop 7, there was included in the appendix the essay by Martin Jay because it points out that there exists this discrepancy between intellectual and political debate, the latter pragmatically oriented towards success, that is only those components of a programme are pushed through, accepted and endorsed, if the politician in support of that component can gain something out of it, i.e. reputation, re-election, general electoral support, etc.. The ramification of only specific parts of a programme being accepted and implemented was touched upon in workshop 5 by Mr. Lenssen, when he raised the question of what 'simple answers' are not sufficient, so that 'cultural actions' and 'cultural activities' like festivals remain within an overall cultural context of understanding. The German philosopher Adorno had warned his students not to take out only one part from the complexity of 'Critical Theory', for acting only upon one part can lead to reactionary responses since the overall context has been lost.

Perhaps Vangelis Kassos' term of the 'technocratic intellectual' can overcome the gap; it may be that the European Commission has many of these in its various DG’s and thus it may provide for a clue as to why more the technocratic, not the viewpoint of culture predominated until now in all European programmes. On the other hand, someone like Noam Chomsky would say, that nowadays intellectuals switch too easily from one to another position, without thereby realising that they still endorse only the anti-democratic core within any theory of democracy if blinded by the basic or normal contradictions in life. For instance, if a German screams "das verbiete ich mir" - that I do not allow even for myself - then this way of drawing a border is limited by its method of doing so, since it implies already 'command and obedience', the situation being addressed none other than where both aspects are no longer adhered to.

Intellectuals, their "voice" and morality in terms of both politics and language, must be taken more into consideration, if Europe is to be formed on the basis of a cultural consensus. The difference to artists makes this even more crucial, since it is usually intellectuals who lend their voice to artistic works and aspirations of artists. It is they who can act as mediators between artists and culture, in particular the cultural receptivity of works in terms of their contribution to culture.

If someone like Umberto Ecco joins the journalists in protest of the take-over of the media by Neo-fascistic members, this should be noted. For morality in public life begins by not creating illusions about life, but to let its complexity speak for itself, that is, through thinking people.

- programmes with multi-cultural features:

the proposal by Doina Popescu provides any reader with the interesting and practical insight that those drawing up programmes, including the press work, the invitation of participants, etc., are inherently involved in decision making processes as to whom such programmes provide with a "voice". In this sense there is a connecting element between Vangelis Kassos and Doina Popescu when it comes to reflect upon the given "voice" (compared to who is given a voice). As a metaphor for more than just being able to speak up, to be heard and listened to, that is, as being recognised in having to say something of importance, importance's in life can be distinguished according to different values. It appears as if we have to relearn our own position of listening and hence evaluation of what we think to hear through others speaking about specific and general problems. That may be the best premise for any new cultural programme based on critical self-evaluation principles. The only draw-back and perhaps there are many more is that usually such cultural attainments are achieved at a high price of self-alienation, i.e. dirty hotels and low budget cultural programmes just to make ends meet, while the contact to the surroundings are left to a minimum. The explanation is that cultural activities take place in illusionary places, often bare and cold, while still their potential is to invigorate life with some new ideas about movements such as a dance when in love. Infatuations of feelings belong to the usual longings for another kind of understanding of life; it relates man and woman to the same desire which can never be really understood in simple terms, even though the real components of love are those of trust and genuine optimism. Culture is thus of a very practical nature.

If not treated as such, then intellectuals are pushed to the periphery. It means that they have not a "voice". The danger of an intellectual parliament would also figure in this voiceless matter, for it may become an institution of exiled intellectuals, something like the psychiatry with its closed station in order to separate and to keep apart the "wild ones" from the rest of the population: mental hygiene at its worst would be the outcome. The fear of repeating European history with its many examples of intolerance and hostility towards the "stranger", that Doina Popescu touched upon when referring to the modern person having no longer any "Heimat", a term with strong connotation, so she explains, for she sees that concept in connection with the national identity building mechanisms of the past century. She is herself interested in that kind of debate because it reveals certain tendencies and insecurities. There is no use to scream about this state of affair. Everyone agrees that it is bad, but what can be done to improve upon the situation, that is of interest to her.

Whether or not participants of that particular workshop or even of the others agree with her, that would be up to future discussions. Certainly it extends the notion of Habermas with regards to 'multicultural societies' to practical programming by cultural institutes like the Goethe which until now has been involved only in bilateral cultural exchange programmes, that is, promoting German culture in respect to the one of the host country. To bring about truly multi-cultural programmes, there have been some recent attempts made in that direction, i.e. joint events with the French and British institute. Yet the real question that needs begging, what if the thesis of Barbara John (in charge of foreigners in Berlin) is not right, namely that 'multi-cultural societies' need "strong individuals" - almost like new cultural heroes - how then to deal accordingly with human weaknesses, fears, angers, etc. which cannot and should not be eradicated. Certainly, such multi-cultural festivals can strengthen the appreciation of the other side, but the inherent difficulties lie not there, but in maintaining lasting relationships which work towards giving the other the "voice" to be heard, that is a voice to be listened to and appreciated in what it has to say.

- the Wales festival brings culture more closer to what can be 'image creation - image making'; here some political purposes begin to shape the programme or the cultural policy; much ends in counting 'the nuts and bolts', that is, what it has meant in terms of investments made and whether or not potential contacts can be utilised, for opening-up to other encounters can mean that not sufficient preparations have been made, in order to be able to respond. The entire project terminates in culture for tourism. As part of the "heritage industry", Yvette Vaughan Jones reflects a trend: foreign tourists buying local arts crafts much more than domestic tourists due to "exotic values". There is the inherent problem of distinguishing between 'popular' culture, including handicraft, as part of the official sponsored carriers of "identity"of a specific region, i.e. Wales, and culture as created by artists finding their own way, that is outside such 'politically' sponsored programmes.

- the Flemish festival idea in connection with the "Europe of Cultures": here becomes clear what is the cultural policy of the Flemish government. Culture, as ambassador, is extended even to typical products by which people identify certain countries with. At this symbolic level, the question of Dieter Hoenisch (director of the National Gallery in Berlin) is most important: does not one harm an artist by saying he is a Polish, German or Flemish one? The contents of the artistic work are lost in this superficial image creation process. Using the arts, culture as a subtle form of advertisement will mean the artists and intellectuals will withdraw even more so from public debates. There will be a discrepancy between those in the money circuit and those outside it.

The enthusiasm by which such a programme is carried forward can be modified by the final report of Eric Antonis who sums things up with a much more sober note.

- European Poetry Festival: promotion of poetry, not of political concepts, is important. The main idea of the XVIth was to hear different voices to underline 'cultural diverse' in Europe, yet the translation of voices (see Katherine Anghelaki-Rooke's paper in workshop 8) is nearly impossible, even though poets are an avant-garde when it comes to translations and to finding bridges for cross-cultural understanding. In that context the Greek singer Savenna Yannatou interacted with her voice with the voices of the poets to create a 'polyphonic' space. If different voices no longer scare the individual, plurality in the sense of hearing can be encouraged. The next festival will be around the theme 'Myth of the City'.

- the retention of the known to the unknown is what Baptiste Marray is driving at: 'le mot magique' and 'le voix incroyable'. Inside that space he creates visions for things to be done. They rest upon ethical values articulated by the sharpness of the mind for things to be seen and felt. Europe has still to overcome the problems of Fascism and Stalinism. Then, in the contemporary context, there are such unresolved places of division like Cyprus or for that matter, 'the human rights issue' throughout the world. Not only amnesty international or the 'Human Rights Watch' should talk about this, but also poets and artists with access to the public media. It is wrong to become complacent and to forget that human life is as sacred as one's own; that cannot be divided or atomised into being somebody while the other is no one. In the rationale of Baptiste Marray, there is a need to be prudent when it comes to adopting cultural policy. The real terrain has not only to be conceived, but also perceived. The different levels leave open in what directions cultural streams tend to go; they do not follow always the bend of the river around the next hill, but rather they contribute to clusters and to subversive forms making believe that the world is not just round or adjustable to everything, but has its own resistance.

The actions he proposes in his own language, French, are worthwhile to notice, for they entail the authentic dimensions of the French intellectual world and what it has contributed so far to Western Civilisation, Descartes and Derrida, Simone de Beauvoir and Irigaray included. Important is what he says at the beginning: Europe despite all difficulties does exist as a democracy based upon the respect of human rights. It exists as a growth pole for economic, scientific and technical development. It is up to the artists and intellectuals to add to this development their own dimension, even hesitation when recollecting that in the Renaissance European expansion to the Third World was on the one hand a brutal economical one, on the other a mission to spread the Christian faith. Such a duality must be avoided. In that sense quite a different model of synthesising European cultures is needed. Thus it becomes important to consider how European identity can be freed from the imperative to 'belong' to Europe as if identity is contingent upon ownership. This is interesting since in France originated truly universal thought.

Out of this follows that special attention has to be given to the three factors influencing the 'historical perspective': "religion, state and nationalism". Although obsolete in many ways, they can create together an explosive mixture. The reason for their 'renaissance' has to be examined in an objective and rigorous manner, for otherwise many conflicts towards which the world is either heeding or already enmeshed in, are not understandable, i.e. the Bosnian drama, the rapport between Serbians and Russia or the Greek-Macedonian dispute (see here also the analysis by Prof. Baeck of the various religious and ethnic components in the former Soviet Union and his concept of 'cultural assertiveness' in the appendix of Workshop 5).

Some attempts have been made to break out of the insular national position each state tends to drive culture, i.e. the French-German relationship since Second World War. However, literature or rather books fail to include both components within one and the same edition. (There are a few exceptions, such as the research done by Werner Meissner, Berlin; perhaps Prof. Picht, director of the French-German institute in Ludwigshafen, and chairperson of workshop 7: Education for Cultural Diversity can be added to this list of literature covering topics such as the escape from 'national interior designs' for culture.) What Jean Baptiste Marray really wants to emphasise and criticise is the ignorance about other cultures being perpetuated by the French culture and not only, for who knows really something about Hungary, Finland, Austria or Sweden - the prospective or new members of the European Union? Ignorance cannot be overcome by treating the other in a cynical manner (i.e. they just want money), nor by reducing the 'other' culture to stereotypical images (see here the problem Bart Verschaffel mentions the problem of media coverage Antwerp '93 was struggling with, in: Third Plenary Session of the Fifth Seminar: Evaluation of the 10 Workshops of the Fifth Seminar).

A chance to overcome this has in the opinion of Jean Baptiste Marray really the European Commission and the Council of Ministers; they have an ideal position to go beyond national positions. For if they do not take up national or religious positions, remain objective and tolerant in principle, then they are by definition transnational. "Under the patronage of the European Council with associations like DIALOGOS, or also the friends in Belgium, it may perhaps be possible to take the initiative to bring the European countries together. It would mean the creation of an inter-nation association willing to explore its historical space and significance due to multi-purposes and a 'pluralistic' memory of itself."

Differentiation and new routes of exploring cultural terrains still waiting to be discovered would be the outcome of such an initiative working towards European identity based on networking. (see here the connection to workshop 1: Cross-Cultural Identities and especially the philosophy of Thanos Contargyris, manager of DIALOGOS who supported the Fifth Seminar because of this networking idea and the Flemish initiative in the direction of a 'Europe of Cultures'.)

Baptiste Marray makes several proposals which he subdivides in those dealing with Ancient as opposed to Contemporary History. In the former thematic field he stresses that religious studies should include 'Calvinism', in particular as to the religious base of Czech (i.e. via Hus), the relationship between Islam and Europe (which would find immediate support from Prof. Baeck, Joris Duytschaever and Maja Panajotova - the latter two made reference to the Islam in workshop 8: Literature, Identity and Discourse), and the cradle of Europe: Cyprus - with its many religious influences having left their marks in the form of temples, symbols, traditions etc..

The contemporary topics should include 'cultural actions' focusing on the harbours of exile which existed during Second World War between France and Spain and was marked especially by the suicidal death of Walter Benjamin who did not want to fall into the hands of the Gestapo; he was send back by the Spanish border guards because he had not a legitimate passport. Furthermore, cultural dissidents in Eastern Europe need to be focused upon, just as much prolific writers in the Islamic world and subject to persecution due to their views potentially questioning the authority of the Koran. For the expanded European Union, it will now be also of importance to incorporate the understanding of 'neutrality' of the Scandinavian countries, a derivative of this being the need to pursue further although very difficult rapports with totalitarian, authoritarian regimes or newer ones rebuilding presently their means of military suppression followed by new ideologies.

In short, he sees the need to move towards a political culture which is perceptive and willing to continue to shape this historical perspective: artists reinforcing historical studies and the histories of Europe. Ateliers should be set up especially to do this work having a historical multi-perspective.

This is a part of the responsible of all Europeans to think about the dangers to be faced and to find the means to resolve them by beginning to comprehend what can be done.

Cultural Capital of Europe

As Eric Antonis said the need for evaluation of such cultural projects as the 'Cultural Capital of Europe' one, an idea initiated by Merlina Mercouri, was mentioned, but there was little time in the workshop to discuss really this issue. That was a pity since the presence of Eric Antonis, Bart Verschaffel and Michael Uytterhoeven would have been important for the organisers of Thessaloniki. As Alecos Alavanos remarked critically in the final plenary session, the fact the Greek side failed to tie in with the Fifth Seminar is a missed chance. Why? If culture, and therefore cultural projects are in need of much more critical evaluations than in the past, alone due to the considerable economic aspects involved, the question is where does this take the core of agreement about the need for 'cultural actions'. Starting with the question are festivals really needed, or what is being replaced by what (for instance, Yvette Vaughan Jones mentioned the Wales participation at the Garden Show outside of Stuttgart in Baden Wurttemberg, precisely at a time when options for an extensive video- and musical festival idea involving artists like Herbert Distel and John Cage was dropped by the local city council in favour of investing in an East Academy as if they had anticipated the fall of the Berlin Wall 1989), the real substance of 'art' becomes clearly one for whom is this art made, if at all for anyone. Bart Verschaffel's reflections in this regard are very important and equally revealing. For it is one thing to step outside the usual form of organising such festivals as part of the extras to the usual business of arts and cultural managers, it is still quite another matter to incorporate a new idea of Europe as coming together through cultural activities or 'cultural actions'. Naturally, the mistakes made by the individual contributors even within a European network liable to apply for additional fund through the KALEIDOSCOPE program, as did the Municipal Centre of Athens with its emphasis on 'Ancient Greek Drama' as staged and played by renown theatre groups throughout Europe, including Peter Stein's Schaubuehne in Berlin and Pina Bausch's Dance Group in Wuppertal, cannot be placed as burden upon the organisers of such a festival. Still, to reduce repeatedly Greece to just one category of artistic expression means in the end to elongate the negation of an ongoing present experimenting and changing daily. Nevertheless, Manolis Sormainis stated in workshop 6 that Greece is best at contributing to the Europe of Cultures out of this aspect: the experiences gathered in the meantime in Greece with regards to Ancient Plays. This claim needs to be re-examined in the light of unusual styles emerging which cannot be called a happy marriage between present and ancient styles. It is not a matter of interpretation or evaluation of what contributions can be made, for if the very idea of a cultural capital of Europe reinforces only national identification models through the presentation of nationally acclaimed cultural contributions, Europe finds hardly a chance to resume its own cultural debate, at its own terms and time.

The idea of a cultural capital reminds of the envy German writers had that their French colleagues had Paris, while they did not. This urge was later translated into making Berlin into a capital once unification was enforced in Germany with the 'iron hand' of Bismarck. The outcome was less than friendly towards equally culture and people. Perhaps Kohl with his decision to make again Berlin into the capital once it was clear that nothing stood in the way of Germany reuniting, indicates how virulent this idea is: there is apparently a need for a capital, in order to bring about recognition. That recognition if not political, must also find its support in the culture, that is, in the arts. The free expression of the tongue, the idiomatic language making even discussions about the weather into a testing ground as to what is really the underlying political mood, that has been said before by many observers of what people say, including Sigmund Freud. Thus the clearest evaluation after Glasgow, Berlin, Dublin, Madrid, and now Antwerp would be to what extend have these projects contributed in their own way towards a lively debate about what brings the different cultures of Europe together? If emphasis is to be given to 'cultural diversity', then any kind of uniformity, or the inability to break out of the 'logic of consumption' (Bart Verschaffel) would make any cultural event futile.

There is a need for further questions, even an evaluation not only of Antwerp '93, but of the very idea that Europe can be brought together by bringing together its various cultures in different capitals over time. Capital seems to have the ability to accumulate itself, but it does not appear that cultural projects like these do, as if there are no experiences out of which to gain further going insights and perspectives.

Perhaps the reflections by Michael Longley (he had been asked whether or not he could come to both the Fifth Seminar and to join the Poets in Crete, but due to the fact that this came on a short notice, he had already other commitments; he has rewritten this report and has offered to send the new version) can give some explanations, for a key thesis of his seems to be that art and hence cultural activities are lost, if decision making succumbs to "short term" political thinking. It might be a major theme to discuss next time, namely the disruptions suffered by artists and intellectuals due to overt goals having to be satisfied first, before considering what forms are conducive to retain a continuity. Even taking one year off from work can become a new source of creativity. That is why 'cultural policy' has to be implemented wisely and administered accordingly. As Michael Longley points out the 'arts' should lead the administration and administrators must ensure that artists have their 'oasis of respect'. In essence, this is but one of the key concepts for maintaining 'cultural diversity' not only between regions, but also within. There is furthermore a real value in supporting the arts through this cautious, honest and wise manner, namely that it can mediate between extremes and reach others, the non-believers, before it comes to an eruption of violence. Given the volatile situation in Northern Ireland, it is amazing what Michael Longley was capable of doing: to reach out without thereby being politically identified with that or any cause. He mentions in this context that art itself is a contribution towards 'pluralism'. That term figured much stronger prior to 1989 then it does now. Other arguments have to be found to justify writer-in-residence projects or to increase the budget for the literature section. When compared to what money is being spend on prestigious opera houses, it is important to note what priority he gives to literature and to those many artists who dedicated to their music or artistic forms of expression are nevertheless way out on the periphery of public attention. It seems that altogether financial priorities with regards to the arts are deliberately distorted, the question of publishing good literature and poetry but just one prime concern. For instance, the Berlin Senate has absolutely no money available for its cultural programmes, as have suffered all Western Goethe Institutes under the same financial cut-back of all budgets. The justification is that the Eastern European countries have to be built up. However, the kind of disruptions now induced will leave their mark and in the future that lack of cultural reflection will hurt the political situation more than what politicians and managers can anticipate right now. The future is at stake when art as a bridge of understanding between past and present is no longer there. Furthermore, this attempt to maintain 'cultural diversity' within the region indicates the extend to which 'art should neither lead nor follow', but exist in the midst of people.

Conclusion

If the ideas discussed in this workshop are reviewed, certain key elements become important:

- artistic equals public space, so that 'cultural policy' must ensure accessibility to artistic activities is guaranteed; in terms of the plight of modern cities with distances growing through fragmentation, this accessibility is no longer a given fact in many European cities, regions and specific areas of dense population but lacking any kind of cultural infrastructure. Accessibility is not only transport and price in relation to time, but also a matter of fact what kinds of newspapers, critical journals, media forms can and do accompany the artistic activities. It is said that the Maastricht Treaty has changed the legal situation of European artists, but that cities like Paris, London or even Berlin are of an entirely different order when it comes to facilitating 'cultural participation and distribution' as part of accessibility. Cities like Antwerp have to face quite different facts when trying to create 'public space' for the arts. The problem remains to be resolved between local needs and international exchange.

- what voices are heard, who is given a 'voice', this seems to depend largely on theme, selection of participants and kind of programme implemented; since long-term cultural premises are only created over time, it seems important on how the media, i.e. cultural programmes in the Radio, work together with cultural co-ordinators in different fields. In the past, the innovative role of the radio, in support of specific artists so that they can develop their 'artistic personality', that has become a part of the European Kaleidoscope Programme considerations, but seems insecure since there is no follow-up in terms of both media coverage and in depth substantiation of works done, performed, composed, etc.

- the need to deal with the 'Myth of Europe' is important when it comes to making expectations as to financial supports more realistic, as well as to seek new ways to facilitate cultural exchange.

^ Top

« Supplement: The Portrait of the European Artist at the end of the Twentieth Century by Vangelis Kassos | Reference Material 1: Antwerp 93: A Tricky Shot by Bart Verschaffel »

Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

Navigation

Considerations and reflections by Hatto Fischer