Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

Mr. Galle: The significance of cultural heritage as exception to Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome

Mr. Galle reflected upon the programme of the European Union having a cultural nature. Here he referred to Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome regulating, among other things, the free circulation of goods. One exception was made, namely with regards to archaeological items. These should not be subject to free circulation. This underlines the idea that member states should decide themselves what they want to do with their 'cultural heritage' (i.e. in Spain exists the regulation, that a Goya painting can be sold, but it cannot leave the country). Mr. Galle mentioned that Article 36 took a long time to be implemented. It was more of an ideal, this notion that the member states would come eventually to some kind of harmonisation as to what they wish to protect as their 'cultural heritage'.

He noted that two major axis are governing the cultural dimension of Europe. Firstly, there is the difference between Northern and Southern cultural heritage, something underlined by the fact that a lot of cultural goods produced by the South are being exhibited by the museums of the North. Thus, in relation to the question of regulation mentioned before, it must be reminded that houses like Christie have a lot of power; there prevails also a powerful lobby interest behind art sales in general, all making legislation on this matter very difficult, especially with regards to the categories to be included or excluded from arts sales, when it comes to protecting cultural goods from being exported out of a particular country. Secondly, there is the entire European complex of interior versus exterior relationships (i.e. Spain - Latin America).

The main cultural paragraph of the Maastricht treaty entails in his opinion one simple philosophy: "Everybody is what he wants to be".

Comments

There was again no time to discuss the full implications of the Maastricht treaty for culture. Mr. Galle went to point out merely that it is acknowledged by now within the European Commission, that differences contribute to cultural richness. There is a notion of European art, an art that does not stop at a particular border and that we as Europeans do have a common h e r i t a g e - while that which can be termed as 'performance' of the community, is really aimed at the collaboration between different members. A decision in this matter will have been taken by December 15, 1993 with regards to these two issues: how differences are recognised and what is the common heritage. This difference can be recognised alone within language(s). On the 15th of January 1994, there will take place a hearing involving the 12 member states with regards to the 9 officially recognised languages. There are a lot more languages and Europe must preserve this differentiation as our treasure, so the appeal of Mr. Galle.

Substantial problems become issues, subject to policy options, a matter of images or symbols to be decided upon and once part of a programme, effective or not, they are reduced to notions, at the worst to slogans. It is the image-creating option that usually wins, or else receives financial support from the side of the European Union. But here some more difficult questions pertaining to the European cultural history are touched upon: why are there so many cultural artefacts of the South to be found in the museums of the North, and what does it mean in terms of claims to be civilised, cultural, a derivative of the Mediterranean culture, or more precisely of Ancient Greece, the birthplace of modern democracy? Indeed, there are the Parthenon marbles in the British Museum, the Pergamon altar pieces in the National Museum of former East Berlin and evidences of archaeological excavations taken from Aegina in Munich. The North has virtually plundered the South, and still looks down upon the latter as culturally inferior in modern, that is economic terms. The Italian League of the North in Italy repeats the same mistake. There is a deeper issue around these fragments of the past looked upon today as part of the common heritage.

Then, there is not only the terrible historical past of Germany during National Socialism, but also that of Europe with regards to its process of colonisation. This is touched upon in reference to Spain's special linkage to Latin America. That includes Portugal and its relationship to Brazil. These are dimensions usually not mentioned every day, but they exist, as does the culturally strained relationship of Europeans to the Third World. If some maturity is going to be gained along the way of integration, it cannot remain forever an unchallenged fact that there are the many antique shops in Brussels which sell exotic masks of African origin as part of possible interior decorations of some luxury suburban home, while the overall economic terms of trade ignore the plights of Africa especially after they have not only gained independence, but also inherited poverty, diseases (Aids), undemocratic rulerships and hideous undercurrents of corruption, cheap money and no substantial basis for economic freedom. They have no cultural resources to draw upon, in order to articulate their identities in any convincing manner. Their brokenness is a mirror of European history filled with exploitation's and brutal treatment of the Third World.

^ Top

« Christopher Harvie: “Culture of the Region” | Prof. Senelle: International Aspects of the Cultural Problem of the European Union »