Talking pot-shards for some...

"A dialogue between cultures" is a term that gets tossed around a lot, be it in the Museums, Policy and Cultural Heritage class or my two previous blog posts. The Versailles and the National Gallery are trying to establish a dialogue between ancient and contemporary culture through exhibitions that put contemporary art in a space surrounded (and usually reserved for) traditional, it's-cool-because-it's-old type art.

Another project tackles the same issue at a much wider scale: The European Comission allocated 5.3 million Euros (that's roughly 8 million dollars) over the course of five years to "Prospero", a project of cultural exchange under which six (or possibly eight) theatres throughout Europe will circulate actors, directors and plays to increase cultural diversity and spread heritage throughout the continent. They will also organize colloquia, lecture series and other educational events. This seems to be "a dialogue between cultures" at it's purest.

Many of the questions that apply for cultural dialogue on a temporal scale can be asked about the same on a spatial scale. Who chooses the "heritage" that is shared? Who is the audience? And why on earth should taxpayers all over the continent support this effort with many millions of Euros?

If anything, then this undertaking shows how public funding can be used in a meaningful way to support cultural diversity. The project was initiated by the National Theatre of Bretagne and developed in conjunction with five other theatres, with two more prospectives hoping to join. The bottom-up approach ensures a relatively apolitical approach to the concept of cultural heritage, whereas federal funding reduces the dependence on commercial interests and increases the artistic liberties the authors can afford to take. Both of these elements contribute to the "authenticity" of the cultural heritage that is passed on to different cultures.

Another issue that was brought up in class today, is how much of the cultural output is shaped by the institutions dedicated to preserving that culture, in other words: the exhibitions in the museums are ultimately created by the curators, not by the people. It is far too easy to get stuck in the usual lines of elite theories and Hobsbawmian "invented traditions", according to which a lot of our customs and heritage is created by the ruling elite for the protection of its power. However, audiatur et altera pars - let's hear the other side! Institutionalizing culture is nothing new, even in non-tangible culture there has always been a sense of centralization - ever since Homer there have been people whose job is to pass on the wisdom of the ancestors, always leaving a personal mark on the heritage in the process. The idea that culture can be passed on objectively quite simply contradicts the very idea of culture. As long as we recognize that institutional bias that any exhibition, collection and museum will always have and remain critical and willing to debate about it, everything is in order.

The short conclusion to this wordy point would be: We should not worry too much about the dangers that government funding and institutional initiative poses to cultural heritage, and rather celebrate the fact that they even exist. Ideally, cultural institutions and public oversight are more likely (and sometimes legally bound) to recognize the threats that impartial representation poses to cultural heritage than others agents (for instance for-profit companies or private collectors). So hurray for the European Commission funding of this exciting initiative and I look forward to visiting Tampere in 2010 to see what the theatres have come up with.