|
|
| Shhh... but no miracle. The curtain gets stuck... Līga Marcinkeviča, Artist A conversation with Republic of Latvia Minister of Culture Sarmīte Ēlerte, which took place in the minister’s office at 5.30 pm on 26 April | |
 Sarmīte Ēlerte | |
| Līga Marcinkeviča: Since you became Minister of Culture, have you changed your opinion about the institutional structure of the cultural sector, and its management? Sarmīte Ēlerte: Are you expecting to hear that I found out something that I didn’t know before? L.M.: No! I’d prefer it if our conversation stayed close to reality, because there’s been plenty of talk about ideas and visions. For me, and I think also for people working in the cultural sector, it would be of interest if we could speak about specific issues in this conversation. S.Ē.: I have been closely involved with culture for decades, from various vantage points. When I was working at the newspaper Diena, culture was one of the undisputed priorities, and discussion about cultural issues was considered to be of the same importance as politics. For over a year I was head of the National Culture Council, when Ints Dālderis was minister, so that meant I was well aware of those dramatic budget cuts also. One thing that I perhaps understood more clearly after following cultural policy at European Union level was that state policy must ensure cultural diversity. This means that there are institutions dealing with culture which have been established by a variety of owners. If we look at it from the public’s point of view, then people couldn’t care less whether a particular institution was established by the state or a municipality, by an NGO or some kind of association. The question is – who is providing high quality cultural services. We inherited a system from the time before independence, a tradition where the state owns theatres, museums and so on, and the state should be responsible for these institutions. That’s how it is, unquestionably. But with the economic crisis, funding for the State Culture Capital Foundation was drastically cut by two thirds, and that means that the state is struggling to (but inadequately) maintain the institutions it owns, while there isn’t any money left for other “players” who frequently offer competitive, high-quality cultural products. This wasn’t so acutely in evidence at the time when the Culture Capital Foundation had two thirds more funding. For example, in theatre, nominations for the Spēlmaņu nakts [‘Night of the Actors’]) awards used to come in not just from the National, Jaunais Rīgas and Dailes theatres, but also from the TT Theatre, the Dirty Deal Café and the Ģertrūdes iela theatre. L.M.: The last ones you mentioned are creative initiatives. But I do think that we should differentiate between state institutions and NGOs. If we assume that the state is an institution which supports the bodies subordinate to it, the duty and objective of the Culture Capital Foundation is to support the creative process. So that the state can select and archive the materials “produced” by the foundation, include them into the cultural canon and respect them as our cultural heritage. S.Ē.: No. There hasn’t been any clear, rational differentiation between the funding that goes through the Culture Capital Foundation and the financing received by state institutions directly. The state has had separate targeted programmes, while the Culture Capital Foundation has also funded performances at state theatres or exhibitions at state museums. L.M.: Perhaps this is a systemic error. S.Ē.: Yes, and I have proposed a discussion about the potential threats facing NGOs at next week’s meeting of the board of the Culture Capital Foundation. L.M.: The reality is that NGOs are able to implement their projects and creative ideas only with state funding. S.Ē.: NGOs manage to attract funding quite successfully from the state and from sponsors, as well as from the EU and other non-domestic donors. But I’d like to say something else. At a time when the amount of funding has shrunk dramatically, state institutions which are themselves state-financed continue to receive money from the Culture Capital Foundation. I’ll give you another analogy. The state owns the enterprise Latvenergo, which is under the supervision of the Ministry of Economics. What is the primary task of the Ministry of Economics? Is it to look out for the interests of the public in the energy sector, or to support its own enterprise? The state is not a businessman, I’m sorry, the state exists to ensure that public interests are protected, rather than those of some enterprise. If we apply this analogy to the Ministry of Culture, then the primary task of the ministry is to ensure that the people of Latvia have access to high quality professional art. And only the next level of responsibility is for institutions. Art can be produced by a state institution, an NGO, an association, whatever. Isn’t that the case? L.M.: Yes, possibly. But as far as the artist (or art producer) is concerned, there isn’t any sign at the moment that the state needs their work, that it is sufficiently appreciated. S.Ē.: Wait! Let’s stop right there, please! What does it mean: “the state needs their art”?! If we are talking about whether or not there is enough funding for culture, then of course there isn’t. Is there currently enough funding for education in Latvia? Definitely not. L.M.: I’m talking about artists who are living and working today. I haven’t analysed the entire cultural “food chain” and I can’t point to where exactly things have gone wrong. But here in Latvia an artist has to die before their work gets into a museum, or better still, they must drop dead on a collector’s doorstep, as this makes it easier to do business and determine the price of their art work. I don’t know what it is, perhaps our ingrained fear or absence of a tradition of recognising our own achievements, or even a consciously constructed model of living, where money is esteemed but the individual person is not. S.Ē.: No! Latvia is a wonderful place to live. I love the rich cultural life we have here. I am happy to be able to speak the Latvian language here. The fact that people and society in Latvia often lack the experience or the ability to properly govern their country and to effectively participate in running it – we could wish things were a lot better on this front. As regards artists, look out the window and all around you. In Latvia there are all kinds of artists: there are those who live in very difficult material circumstances, yet others regularly sell their works abroad, some are very well off while others eke out a modest living. Our artists are a diverse lot. We shouldn’t portray them all as poor and starving martyrs. L.M.: That has never been my objective, not for one moment. I don’t hold up artists as some kind of special group in society. And perhaps the previously described distinction was somewhat harsh and even a little incorrect. Because this state functions, and it has survived, thanks to the work of every person. S.Ē.: Artists are sometimes as if endowed with two natures. On the one hand, it is vitally necessary for them to be intellectually and spiritually independent, independent internally, independent of everything. On the other hand, there is a need to be protected, under the wing of something, the ones in power included. This is an internal contradiction. The duty of the state is to ensure that the public has rightful access to high quality arts and culture, to provide a system through which an artist receives funding, but which prevents any political interference in artistic content. Please understand that if an artist wants to be under a protective wing, then unfortunately he or she is prepared to give up his or her independence, and that is not in the interests of society. L.M.: I disagree with all of that. S.Ē.: With what exactly? L.M.: About the protective wing. I agree with the first bit about the independence, but actually that’s what everybody wants and has a right to. It is important for the artist to be appreciated. That’s the foundation of the creative process – the opportunity for the artist to show what they have created and to receive feedback about it. S.Ē.: Who gives the feedback? The state, therefore politicians? L.M.: The public. That’s why artists create – in order to offer up the finished product for appraisal. S.Ē.: In your question you stated something else – that the state does not value the artist. So what are we really talking about then? What an artist’s recognition consists of? Let’s try to clear things up. L.M.: Perhaps it would be better not to continue to discuss this imprecisely formulated question. Otherwise we’ll get side-tracked too much. S.Ē.: I would like to maintain that this is the job of independent, critical and competent art critics who are capable of defining artistic values and discussing them. It is a kind of process by which these values are appraised and feedback is given, and some will “fall through the net”, certainly, because the history of art teaches us that there are artists who were only recognised after their death. So that is one form of recognition. L.M.: You are talking about professional culture. S.Ē.: No, it isn’t professional culture. If we think of art criticism as something narrowly focussed and only dealing with professionals, then it doesn’t serve the interests of society. Therefore the purpose of all criticism, artistic or literary, is to determine values: aesthetic and ethical values. To separate the wheat from the chaff, to explain to people and at the same time to educate the viewer to understand what is going on. That is one form of recognition. The Purvītis Prize may be another form of recognition. One particular patron of the arts has donated a considerable sum of money for an art prize. A professional jury is invited along to draw attention to the artistic process and, simultaneously, to assess it. There can be no doubt that it draws attention to the fine arts – special attention, because I am not aware of any other art form having such a financially lucrative prize. L.M.: The Purvītis Prize is the initiative of one individual, a project that makes the initiator happy, who doesn’t deny the same to others. But... S.Ē.: Hang on a minute! I disagree. Because, apart from this one person on the jury of the Purvītis Prize who may be enjoying himself for some reason... L.M.: Well it must be making people happy, because otherwise they wouldn’t continue to give out the prize. S.Ē.: This particular jury includes professional art historians and critics, not just from Latvia but from Lithuania and Poland as well. That means that the founder of this prize, Jānis Zuzāns, has only the one vote on the jury. L.M.: Without going into details, but speaking about issues of form, I think that this award is a high quality event created by one man. S.Ē.: It is the biggest award existing in Latvia for any of the arts. And a good example of how private capital supports the arts. As in any democratic country. L.M.: Yes. S.Ē.: It attracts a lot of attention, and in terms of recognition, this is one way that art is appraised throughout the world. Very often with the assistance of private funding. Moving on – what else constitutes recognition of art? L.M.: Perhaps we should close this subject? S.Ē.: No, no, no. You asked the question and now you want to run away from the answer. L.M.: I have other questions as well. S.Ē.: Would you like, for example, Valdis Dombrovskis or Valdis Zatlers or Sarmīte Ēlerte to express their assessment of art? L.M.: Why not? Personally. S.Ē.: You see, I wouldn’t want them to. I wouldn’t want any of these people – except as private persons in their own home – to be expressing a positive or negative view of art. I think it is very important that politicians have no way of influencing the content of art, and if they were to start sharing their opinions about art then they would be exerting an influence on art and we would be back in the Soviet era. L.M.: And yet – what are the matters for which the Ministry of Culture is principally responsible? Considerable time has passed since November, long enough for me to ask you what is wrong and what is right with the system, as well as what should not be touched under any circumstances, and what should be fixed or reintroduced. S.Ē.: Responsible for what? That people in Latvia should have access to high (quality) art. What’s wrong? That there is not enough financing for culture, and that there is insufficient awareness that language and culture are the very foundations of the Latvian state. What should we achieve? That in the next planning phase for the allocation of EU funds there should be more funding made available to the cultural and creative industries. Something to bring in? Together with other ministries we must surmount the sectoral divide. I met with ministers Vējonis and Jurševska in order to talk about cooperation using all 832 libraries in Latvia as education and social integration centres, and ‘one-stop shop’ agencies. On 6 May we are going to sign a memorandum of intent with the Minister of Economics Kampars about support for the cultural and creative industries. L.M.: Let’s talk about cultural education, about cultural policy and the nuances that affect each and every one. If the ‘big idea’ about how a state should operate is clear... S.Ē.: No, I don’t think that the big picture of how the state should work is completely clear in people’s minds. But let’s move on. L.M.: But who does have a clear idea? Who will develop the conception? S.Ē.: Well! You said it yourself – each and every person in the country knows perfectly clearly how the state should operate. L.M.: If I perform my job conscientiously and not only... S.Ē.: What does it mean, ‘conscientiously’? A slave, too, can work conscientiously in a totalitarian state, and that has nothing to do with a democratic state. L.M.: I agree. Nevertheless I would like to continue with the specific points that are currently of great significance to artists. Do we stay with the current cultural management model, where the priorities are historical research and maintaining monuments, without a clear plan about the direction of actual artistic trends? Or is there a clear plan for how the cultural institutional structure could take shape over the next five years, or next year? S.Ē.: For my part, I see all around us an extremely vibrant artistic process in action and the inadequacy of the state to maintain memorials, as well as a rather feebly developed consciousness of history. I don’t think the structure of art institutions is likely to change very much over the next two or three years. I hope that we will continue to support the same museums that we do have, and that we won’t have to close any of them, because so far we have survived the toughest period of the economic crisis without closing any museums. Latvia’s weakness at present is that we don’t have a full-time operational contemporary art space, where foreign curators could come and work, similarly as in Vilnius, Tallinn or Helsinki. L.M.: Then maybe that is the thing that needs to be changed, and a place like that should be established? S.Ē.: This summer the Museum of Foreign Art is going to open in the building of the Riga Stock Exchange Museum. It will be a unique space of very high quality. L.M.: A museum with a permanent exhibition. S.Ē.: The permanent exhibition will only be a part of it. There will also be exhibitions mounted in collaboration with notable European curators. It will be a chance for the society of Latvia to see themselves as part of Europe in terms of visual thinking as well. The Museum of Foreign Art will be a very important art space in Riga. I am pleased that we will be able to complete the construction of the National Library of Latvia. In spite of the most difficult crisis, funding for the library was not discontinued, and that’s 30.7 million this year. To imagine that the state can build an enormous structure like the National Library and other things also at the same time is utopian. Latvia is a somewhat poor country. This means that we have to think about various other possibilities as well. The reconstruction plan for the National Art Museum of Latvia has been approved and this means that in 2014, when Riga will be the Capital of Culture, the museum will have been renovated. And there, too, we will have exhibition halls of a high standard, without the leaking roof that is a danger to visitors and a threat to the collection. But the fact that Latvia is still without a museum of modern or contemporary art – that, of course, is a problem. L.M.: Issues relating to visual arts and the visual arts sector in general are particularly painful for me, as in my opinion this area has been unfairly “deprived”. For example, in the sphere of music there is a state institution like Latvijas koncerti Ltd., in cinema – the National Film Centre of Latvia, but the visual arts does not have anything like that. Possibly the contemporary art museum could have become this kind of institutional centre. Isn’t that the thing that is vitally needed in this field? S.Ē.: Of course. But I also explained that Latvia is a relatively poor country and it would be unrealistic to think that it could simultaneously build such expensive cultural buildings as the National Library and a contemporary art museum. The Ministry of Culture’s multi- year funding goes to the Contemporary Art Centre, the contemporary art centre kim?, the NOASS culture and art project and RIXC. Money for the visual arts is also allocated by the Culture Capital Foundation. L.M.: What do you think – why is it important for Latvia’s artists to participate in the Venice Biennale? S.Ē.: Of course, it’s important, but it doesn’t solve the issue of a contemporary art museum. L.M.: Definitely not. It doesn’t solve the issue of the museum as a building. But the building is one thing – and the contents something completely different. The contents is of the essence. S.Ē.: As far as I know, an exhibition hall has been planned for Andrejsala. In putting forward the cultural and creative industries as one of our priorities, it would be right to think about the environment as well, about the space in which this creative energy and these cultural and creative industries could concentrate. We’re thinking about a place like that at the moment, but it’s still too early to make it public. If it works out, then I’ll be happy, if it doesn’t – we’ll think again. There won’t be a quick solution to the issue of a contemporary art museum. L.M.: But a conception for the contents in this sector, a strategy for the existence and survival of the visual arts. Are these processes which take place of themselves, and in which the state shouldn’t interfere? S.Ē.: You know, the extremes in the emotional amplitude of this conversation are as if we’re about to have a dozen artists dead from hunger on the street, or something similar. Let’s not use the word ‘survival’, as if there wasn’t funding for the Art Academy and art schools, as well as support from the State Culture Capital Foundation. This year the visual arts sector will receive 3.2 million lats from the Ministry of Culture. Is that insufficient? Certainly. L.M.: I’m not trying to steer this discussion towards citing figures, not at all. The important thing is to understand the objectives. S.Ē.: An artist’s only goal is to express his or her creative talent undisturbed, in the interests of society. A democratic country does not have the right to prescribe any goals for artists, otherwise – I’m sorry – we’re back to a totalitarian state. The responsibility of the state is to take care of education... L.M.: How? How does it happen? Conceptually, I agree. I’ve examined the plans in principle which can be found on the Ministry of Culture internet site. But how will they actually be introduced? What are the tasks to be undertaken? You too in the Ministry need points of reference as to why and what you have done. The systemic working model is not clear. For example, the strain in relations connected with the reduction in funding for higher education institutions of culture. Your meeting with the rectors and students in the street, surrounded by the media, looked like a PR exercise. What prevented you from having a chat around the table with the rectors and resolving the issue? Why did it necessitate the four hundred students? The motives behind the event did not look convincing. What were the counterpoints which made you change the decision about not reducing funding? Were there actually any? It came out like this: see, we went out and met up and, well alright, let’s not reduce funding today then. But what’s going to happen from here onward? How should a cultural institution develop its strategies for operation, according to what rules and conditions? S.Ē.: Why did a reduction in funding for higher education institutions for culture suddenly appear? Because it suddenly appeared in a proposal from the Ministry of Finance, but the Ministry of Culture considered that such a reduction was, firstly, not possible as it would jeopardize both the quality of studies as well as the development of creative processes in the country. Secondly, it was unfounded and illogical when compared to the higher education system as a whole. The Ministry of Culture always defended this position and argued it at the very first opportunity there was for discussion within government, and the government supported our position. Why did there have to be so much fuss around this issue? Probably because we are currently living at a very unstable time and people are generally worried. It wouldn’t have been adopted, irrespective of whether the students had gone on this march or not. It was illogical, impossible and unacceptable. L.M.: So the rectors didn’t believe you? S.Ē.: Well, did the rectors organize it? L.M.: They were the ones who talked with their students in the Academy courtyard about whether to go or not. S.Ē.: Well, they probably thought it was safer that way. As to the decision which was adopted – the decision is logical. Currently a review of all the higher education programmes is taking place, and the goal of this evaluation is to avoid the doubling up of programmes. The Ministry of Education and Science is to present its first conclusions in September. We have asked them to include also representatives from the Ministry of Culture in the working group operating under the Ministry of Education and Science, and in this way we’re trying to keep an eye on it so that the assessment is logical and responsible. The fact that there are an unnecessarily high number of duplicate study programmes in Latvia is obvious to everybody. It is an ineffective system and has to be changed. L.M.: The duplication of educational programmes occurs in institutions under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education and Science, not the Ministry of Culture. S.Ē.: Design is taught at twelve higher education institutions. L.M.: But they all aren’t higher education institutions under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Culture. S.Ē.: Higher education institutions in Latvia are answerable to the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Agriculture and others as well. You can study music pedagogy at another three state higher education institutions; study programmes similar to the Design study programme at the Art Academy of Latvia are offered at five other state higher education institutions. An assessment should be made as to which institution offers the highest quality education in these programmes, and I think that the art education institutions are quite competitive. L.M.: At one point interior design courses just cropped up every-where. But this happened so recently that it’s possible to find out who it was that signed the go-ahead to develop these duplicate programmes so freely, and under which Ministry. It’s fantastic for the higher education institutions which pursue the “money follows the student” funding model if there are such popular programmes as ‘interior design’ or even better ‘design’ – a concept which encompasses so much... S.Ē.: The Ministry of Culture does not conduct the accreditation of study programmes. We’ve talked to rectors of higher education institutions of culture about the fact that they do need to consider in which programmes cooperation between higher education institutions is possible. Joint humanities subjects, joint professional doctorate studies, the attraction of foreign guest lecturers. L.M.: Is it fair that, in this current assessment of programmes, higher education institutions which historically, for years, have offered the educational programmes mentioned are being assessed on the same footing as those that were “cooked up” during the good times? Tradition after all is added value. S.Ē.: Tradition has the significance that, for example, the Art Academy has been able to offer very high quality education, suitable to the requirements not of the 19th century, but the 20th and 21st century. There’s no contradiction here. Each institution’s task is to offer education that is of the highest quality and the most appropriate to our times. Of course, looking beyond Latvia, it is clear that the Art Academy has its own particular school with which it competes internationally. However, the fact that one school established its programme thirty years earlier, but another – ten years later is not a criterion. The criterion is quality. To be able to make well argumented decisions, we want to undertake a labour market survey, to understand how education at Latvia’s higher education institutions is rated and how, with this education, the graduates themselves are capable of entering the labour market. I think this will be a very important argument. L.M.: Statisticians should have already researched similar questions, so that the ministry could use this kind of data if and when required. If you commission the survey now, that means another year, but there are real people who are already implicated in this process: a young person faced with a choice, or the head of the higher education institution involved in planning the next study year. S.Ē.: Not in a year’s time, but in September. The previous survey was in 2008. It ascertained and collated the views of music and art school students and their parents, evaluated them and offered proposals for improving the quality of professional education. Surveys like this are not needed every year. L.M.: The new school year commences in September! Rectors, lecturers and potential students will experience uncertainty and unease. S.Ē.: The 2011 Budget has been adopted. Resources for cultural education have not been reduced this year, and higher education institutes can take this into consideration. L.M.: What is happening with the Liepāja Art High School? This is cultural education at various levels. If I’m to believe the information which is in the media, and think of the future – who is the potential Art Academy student in five years time? What’s happening or will happen in Kurzeme? Because Liepāja Art High School graduates aren’t just artists. They’re RTU [Riga Technical University] students, builders and architects, LLU [Latvia University of Agriculture] landscape architects, regional visual art teachers, children’s art school teachers. I’m a realist: a specialist from some other region will certainly not go to Kurzeme to teach visual art or to work in an art school. S.Ē.: It’s very important that Liepāja has this school. As for the funding specifically, it’s not being reduced. In fact, state funding for the school has grown this year in connection with the increase in the minimum wage nationally. No-one is about to close the school down, we’re simply asking that its finances be in order. The school accepted more students than it could afford, relative to its funding, without coordinating this with the Ministry. And now the school has to solve this problem. In the cultural education system, the “money follows the student” principle does not hold. The schools under the Ministry of Culture are allocated a set budget, which means that the schools have to take this into account and they can’t take on more new students and then say: “Oh dear, we have less money now.” In recent years, the Liepāja Art High School has developed new educational programmes and attracted new students. L.M.: So the school won’t be closed down. S.Ē.: No. L.M.: Why is it important for Latvia to participate in the Venice Biennale? S.Ē.: Firstly, each artist is an individual, and it’s important for them to show and compare themselves on one of the most important arenas in visual art. Secondly, it is important for Latvia to demonstrate that it’s a country where high quality art is being created, and that’s why it participates in this kind of biennale, covering the costs of hiring the exhibition space, organizing competitions and allocating resources, so that artists can show their work there. And thirdly – the marketing of Latvia. L.M.: Is it worth hoping that the country representation process will be stabilized? S.Ē.: What do you mean by that? L.M.: So that the implementation of the project wouldn’t be to the disadvantage of the people involved in it, due to the short period of time made available to the artists between the notification of competition results and the exhibition opening. The Lithuanians already knew in August last year which artist would be creating the exposition in Venice, and they also know each time that the government will have allocated 150 000 euro for the Venice project, and the potential organizers can take this into account. S.Ē.: Yes, this short period in which Ģelzis is compelled to work at the moment is completely unacceptable. The reason is that the Ministry of Culture has not yet found a longstanding partner with respect to the issue of the exhibition space. And, obviously, a reliable partner on the Italian side. It’s difficult for me to comment on all of the circumstances. On commencing work in November, this was one of the first questions that I addressed. L.M.: Is there any possibility that during your period in office a stable system will be put into place regarding the matter? S.Ē.: This eternal uncertainty about the exhibition space has to be sorted out. But, as for the setting aside of resources, it would be very good if in future everyone knew that there was a certain sum of money earmarked for the Venice Biennale. L.M.: Because it’s quite clear that the Biennale takes place every two years. S.Ē.: At the moment, I’ll remind you, Latvia is one of the European countries which has suffered the most heavily in the crisis. Even though economic recovery has begun, the Latvian budget continues to be restricted and that’s why we could possibly consider this – at a later date. Next year’s state budget is to be reduced even more. L.M.: Would you stand as a candidate for the position of President of Latvia, if the opportunity arose? S.Ē.: No. /Translators into English: Filips Birzulis and Uldis Brūns/ | |
| go back | |
