a few loose notes about culture
You won’t nd any substantial essays in these notes. The idea’s to get down on paper things which have come out in conversations with various people recently. They’re opinions and don’t pretend to be analyses or diagnoses. I know that reality is more complex and diverse than what I put forward on these lines, and my aim isn’t to be right either. The idea’s to get down on paper – in a direct, understandable way – some loose sketches of the culture around us and our cultural ecosystem. culture=event
There’s no denying the impetus and importance of culture in our country during recent years. Culture can be measured in economic terms and, since we realised it can earn us pro ts, it’s become the perfect decoration for promoting and dressing up several other economic activities. But let’s not confuse things. We’re talking about culture which matters. Cultural “events” which can be immediately measured and whose results and pro ts can be received.
Culture has coloured our daily life. We’ve turned everything into culture. The increase in cultural events has been extraordinary. But there’s very seldom any re ection about the B-side which the broadening of the word “culture” has brought with it. Culture has become a synonym for leisure. Instead of experiencing culture, we “consume” it. To a great extent, the saturation of cultural shows has lead to frivolity and banality. Things hardly last at all. They don’t last in places for culture, or in our minds and bellies. We’re turned culture into machinery. In a conscious way. Concepts such as the culture industry and cultural tourism have prevailed... and we’ve all done that together.
the hierarchy of culture
Arantxa Urretabizkaia wrote in Berria that there are birds and birdwatchers in the world of culture. It’s a great example. In culture, there are the creators and, on the other hand, people who examine, measure and broadcast (or hide) what the creators have made. Both types of people are probably necessary, but there’s a problem when there start to be more ornithologists than birds. Nowadays the birds are no more than an excuse for the existence of the birdwatchers.
You only have to look at posters and promotional material for art exhibitions. Curators are more important than artists. They’re in charge of the art programme nowadays. It’s their opinions and knowledge which directs art. Nowadays curators think that they create art themselves when they talk about it. “Curator” could be “kudeator” in Basque: a sort of manager. Directors of art centres, critics, academics, cultural movers, artistic directors... it’s all fauna which has got itself of the top of the cultural ecosystem’s food chain. And, above them all, the directors of the institutions which put their logos on everything. Politicians who like to appear in photos next to creators and other people from the arts world. They don’t miss a chance to emphasise that those exhibitions, shows and cultural activities are paid for with everybody’s money but take place thanks to them.
We could also talk about the precariousness which is promoted in culture. How that fauna at the top of the cultural ecosystem’s food chain often directs a large percentage of the budget to its own activities and just leaves some crumbs for the creators. When activities covered in institutional logos and their organizers unashamedly ask people to give courses, shows or conferences for 50 Euros or for free, it’s quite clear that we long ago accepted the transformation which has taken place in culture.
the mainstream and selfie culture
I’ve heard and read more than once recently that all culture systems as well as gathering culture need to have a mainstream or commercial culture. And there’s little gainsaying that. The problem arises when it comes to de ning mainstream.
Because the USA’s mainstream culture isn’t the same as France’s or, let’s say, Spain’s. Basque culture clearly needs its own mainstream, but this proclamation shouldn’t be used to mean “anything goes”. Because all too often the term covers up for uninteresting ideas, lack of talent and pure ease. But then, that leads to the big question: Who says what’s quality and what isn’t? But... aren’t questions like that often just an excuse? We hide under the name of subjectivity once more. There are also people who mention the idea of elitism, but elitism and quality are often mixed up. On purpose. Recently Saizarbitoria was quoted in a recent interview in Argia as saying that innovators have to mark the way to quality.
Here’s another revolutionary concept which politicians, journalists and other people who work in culture like to say: “We’re all creators”. They tell us time and again that everyone must be offered the chance to create in the new UBIK library at Tabakalera, or under the aegis of the Cultural Capital, or at the dozens of culture centres all around our country. You can’t go against it, but an indispensable part of creation often gets forgotten about: training. To be able to take part in any type of cultural activity, training has to be offered. And that training isn’t achieved by itself but by consuming culture. What’s the point in starting to make lms, theatre and books if nobody wants to see them? We obsess about our own creations, only take an interest in ourselves and have no interest in enjoying things other people do. Aren’t we living in the selfie age?
cake and prestige
In our cultural world, the authorities and culture leaders don’t so much self- criticise as not criticise Normally, it’s the artists and creators who are the most critical. But those of us in that group don’t get off scot-free either. Because we’re an active part of everything that I’m criticising here. Most creators want to get a slice of the cake of the cultural events and spaces which the institutions promote. And it isn’t just as a matter of survival: in this sel e culture of ours, ego motivates us too. I’ve heard my father say that until recently anyone who didn’t know how to do anything became a chef or an artist. And now, on the other hand, few callings have the social prestige which those two have. All of a sudden, creators are somebody in society. Their opinions are respected. Creators think of themselves as experts although, quite often, all they do is follow what’s fashionable. And, by the way, my father was a chef.
There’s no denying the impetus and importance of culture in our country during recent years. Culture can be measured in economic terms and, since we realised it can earn us pro ts, it’s become the perfect decoration for promoting and dressing up several other economic activities. But let’s not confuse things. We’re talking about culture which matters. Cultural “events” which can be immediately measured and whose results and pro ts can be received.
Culture has coloured our daily life. We’ve turned everything into culture. The increase in cultural events has been extraordinary. But there’s very seldom any re ection about the B-side which the broadening of the word “culture” has brought with it. Culture has become a synonym for leisure. Instead of experiencing culture, we “consume” it. To a great extent, the saturation of cultural shows has lead to frivolity and banality. Things hardly last at all. They don’t last in places for culture, or in our minds and bellies. We’re turned culture into machinery. In a conscious way. Concepts such as the culture industry and cultural tourism have prevailed... and we’ve all done that together.
the hierarchy of culture
Arantxa Urretabizkaia wrote in Berria that there are birds and birdwatchers in the world of culture. It’s a great example. In culture, there are the creators and, on the other hand, people who examine, measure and broadcast (or hide) what the creators have made. Both types of people are probably necessary, but there’s a problem when there start to be more ornithologists than birds. Nowadays the birds are no more than an excuse for the existence of the birdwatchers.
You only have to look at posters and promotional material for art exhibitions. Curators are more important than artists. They’re in charge of the art programme nowadays. It’s their opinions and knowledge which directs art. Nowadays curators think that they create art themselves when they talk about it. “Curator” could be “kudeator” in Basque: a sort of manager. Directors of art centres, critics, academics, cultural movers, artistic directors... it’s all fauna which has got itself of the top of the cultural ecosystem’s food chain. And, above them all, the directors of the institutions which put their logos on everything. Politicians who like to appear in photos next to creators and other people from the arts world. They don’t miss a chance to emphasise that those exhibitions, shows and cultural activities are paid for with everybody’s money but take place thanks to them.
We could also talk about the precariousness which is promoted in culture. How that fauna at the top of the cultural ecosystem’s food chain often directs a large percentage of the budget to its own activities and just leaves some crumbs for the creators. When activities covered in institutional logos and their organizers unashamedly ask people to give courses, shows or conferences for 50 Euros or for free, it’s quite clear that we long ago accepted the transformation which has taken place in culture.
the mainstream and selfie culture
I’ve heard and read more than once recently that all culture systems as well as gathering culture need to have a mainstream or commercial culture. And there’s little gainsaying that. The problem arises when it comes to de ning mainstream.
Because the USA’s mainstream culture isn’t the same as France’s or, let’s say, Spain’s. Basque culture clearly needs its own mainstream, but this proclamation shouldn’t be used to mean “anything goes”. Because all too often the term covers up for uninteresting ideas, lack of talent and pure ease. But then, that leads to the big question: Who says what’s quality and what isn’t? But... aren’t questions like that often just an excuse? We hide under the name of subjectivity once more. There are also people who mention the idea of elitism, but elitism and quality are often mixed up. On purpose. Recently Saizarbitoria was quoted in a recent interview in Argia as saying that innovators have to mark the way to quality.
Here’s another revolutionary concept which politicians, journalists and other people who work in culture like to say: “We’re all creators”. They tell us time and again that everyone must be offered the chance to create in the new UBIK library at Tabakalera, or under the aegis of the Cultural Capital, or at the dozens of culture centres all around our country. You can’t go against it, but an indispensable part of creation often gets forgotten about: training. To be able to take part in any type of cultural activity, training has to be offered. And that training isn’t achieved by itself but by consuming culture. What’s the point in starting to make lms, theatre and books if nobody wants to see them? We obsess about our own creations, only take an interest in ourselves and have no interest in enjoying things other people do. Aren’t we living in the selfie age?
cake and prestige
In our cultural world, the authorities and culture leaders don’t so much self- criticise as not criticise Normally, it’s the artists and creators who are the most critical. But those of us in that group don’t get off scot-free either. Because we’re an active part of everything that I’m criticising here. Most creators want to get a slice of the cake of the cultural events and spaces which the institutions promote. And it isn’t just as a matter of survival: in this sel e culture of ours, ego motivates us too. I’ve heard my father say that until recently anyone who didn’t know how to do anything became a chef or an artist. And now, on the other hand, few callings have the social prestige which those two have. All of a sudden, creators are somebody in society. Their opinions are respected. Creators think of themselves as experts although, quite often, all they do is follow what’s fashionable. And, by the way, my father was a chef.
