The recent experiment brought about by activists at the Guggenheim Museum represents an interesting attempt and a model for future forms of activism within cultural institutions.
The action/boycott was aimed at making visitors aware of the new expansion plans fostered by the Guggenheim which included the realisation of a new museum in Abu Dhabi that according to Hyperallergic activists, will be constructed through the use of infamous debt peonage agreements.
The initiative is beyond any doubt laudable; an excellent starting point which can be fruitfully repeated in other Museums and/or cultural institutions. Yet, at the same time, while effective for very specific aims (Guggenheim direction felt immediately the need to respond to protests and clarify the position of the institution), this kind of action falls short of addressing some basic issues that cultural workers really need to start to tackle. In my view the main point is, to put it bluntly, the amount of resources that are allocated to culture. As long as within national budgets of countries public expenditure for culture continue to stay at the current level (e.g. in European countries 0.55% is the current median value attested) infiltration of 'corporate logic', so to speak, will ineluctably (but not without responsibility) drive policy of cultural institutions toward the kind of misbehaviour denounced by activists.
This is the real elephant in the room. Can we lobby and together push to have greater public resources for culture within modern 'democratic' states? I believe that as long as we do not address this, problems similar to those addressed by activists will cyclically emerge. With this, of course, I am not stating that we have to cease to work on the specific, but rather that along with commitment on individual issues, we need to start to deal also with the set of conditions from which these problems stem. To this extent, the first step is to create a real class-consciousness among cultural workers. Whether archaeologists on the field, curators, museum workers, gallery assistants and so on, we are all part of a broad cultural sector with many common interests, and above all, we are all too aware that the amount of resources allocated to culture is growing increasingly scarce. Such a class-consciousness, in turn, needs to be able to win a large consensus and hegemonise public opinion in broader international settings as well as, more traditionally, within each state. Cultural workers must start to address policy-making and advocate for greater resources. Or else they will perish and/or the whole sector will become increasingly the court jester of corporate power.
In short what we need, I think, is some sort of global campaign aimed at making people aware of how much culture matters in their life and, at the same time, a transnational organism able to influence states and supra-national institutions alike about the fundamental need for more resources (a good old-fashioned trade union?).
The action/boycott was aimed at making visitors aware of the new expansion plans fostered by the Guggenheim which included the realisation of a new museum in Abu Dhabi that according to Hyperallergic activists, will be constructed through the use of infamous debt peonage agreements.
The initiative is beyond any doubt laudable; an excellent starting point which can be fruitfully repeated in other Museums and/or cultural institutions. Yet, at the same time, while effective for very specific aims (Guggenheim direction felt immediately the need to respond to protests and clarify the position of the institution), this kind of action falls short of addressing some basic issues that cultural workers really need to start to tackle. In my view the main point is, to put it bluntly, the amount of resources that are allocated to culture. As long as within national budgets of countries public expenditure for culture continue to stay at the current level (e.g. in European countries 0.55% is the current median value attested) infiltration of 'corporate logic', so to speak, will ineluctably (but not without responsibility) drive policy of cultural institutions toward the kind of misbehaviour denounced by activists.
This is the real elephant in the room. Can we lobby and together push to have greater public resources for culture within modern 'democratic' states? I believe that as long as we do not address this, problems similar to those addressed by activists will cyclically emerge. With this, of course, I am not stating that we have to cease to work on the specific, but rather that along with commitment on individual issues, we need to start to deal also with the set of conditions from which these problems stem. To this extent, the first step is to create a real class-consciousness among cultural workers. Whether archaeologists on the field, curators, museum workers, gallery assistants and so on, we are all part of a broad cultural sector with many common interests, and above all, we are all too aware that the amount of resources allocated to culture is growing increasingly scarce. Such a class-consciousness, in turn, needs to be able to win a large consensus and hegemonise public opinion in broader international settings as well as, more traditionally, within each state. Cultural workers must start to address policy-making and advocate for greater resources. Or else they will perish and/or the whole sector will become increasingly the court jester of corporate power.
In short what we need, I think, is some sort of global campaign aimed at making people aware of how much culture matters in their life and, at the same time, a transnational organism able to influence states and supra-national institutions alike about the fundamental need for more resources (a good old-fashioned trade union?).
No comments:
Post a Comment