Kulturpolitik som stoleleg

Culture, Museums, Politics No Responses »
Jan 142012

Sorry, this post is danish only

Jeg forstår godt, at Det Kongelige Teater protesterer. Generelt er kulturinstitutionernes ansatte og ledelser alt for passive, når vi rammes af sparekniven, og for dårlige til at fortælle om hvad det medfører. Det er i sidste ende et svigt overfor borgerne, for hvis ikke borgerne kender de reelle konsekvenser af den førte kulturpolitik, så kan de jo heller ikke tage stilling til, om der prioriteres rigtigt.

Men når jeg læser om eksemplerne på, hvordan Det Kongelige Teater skal spare, så får jeg en underlig følelse af deja-vu: den andel af personalet, man må undvære, svarer nemlig stort set til den andel vi mistede allerede sidste år på Nationalmuseet, hvor jeg selv er menig medarbejder. Teatret bebuder færre forestillinger. På Nationalmuseet har vi for længst halveret antallet af særudstillinger. Teatret mener ikke, man kan spille på internationalt niveau med et mindre operakor. På Nationalmuseet er der ingen nedre grænse for, hvor få medarbejdere man kan klare sig med, og stadig kalde sig et museum i international klasse.

Vil vi have opera og ballet koster det penge – sådan må det være. Og det koster nu en gang mere at sætte Wagner op, end at arrangere en blues-koncert. Men vi må også forholde os til det faktum, at Det Kongelige Teater er den kulturinstitution, der modtager suverænt flest støttekroner pr. bruger. Som Politiken tidligere har vist, så betaler det offentlige typisk 4 gange så meget for hver besøgende i operaen eller balletten, som man betaler for andre teaterbesøg, og 6-12 gange så meget som man betaler pr. besøgende på de store museer.

Nu protesterer tidligere medlemmer af teatrets bestyrelse og en tidligere operachef. Jeg mindes ikke, at bestyrelse og chefer før har rejst tvivl om, hvor vidt det nu var en god idé at investere så massivt i mursten, som teatret gjorde i 00’erne? Tværtimod er det som om man i de gode tider bare byggede, med forventning om at de dermed forøgede driftsudgifter nok skulle blive dækket ind.

I årevis har skiftende regeringer langsomt, men systematisk beskåret de statslige kulturinstitutioners basis-bevillinger. Selv i de fede tider, hvor nationen ellers hyggede sig med stigende friværdier og privatforbrug. Når politikere og kulturskribenter, som i øvrigt varmt har støttet den førte politik, nu pludselig springer i harnisk for Det Kongelige Teater, så virker det ærlig talt en smule patetisk.

Det er som om kulturpolitikken er degenereret til en stoleleg. I den er det lige nu Det Kongelige Teater, som er havnet på den tomme plads. Det er surt, men det ville være en ulykke, hvis teatret som den stærke dreng i klassen fik held til at skaffe sig en stol, ved at skubbe en af de andre ned på gulvet.

I stedet er der brug for et markant økonomisk løft af den samlede kulturpolitik, kombineret med en bred folkelig og faglig diskussion af prioriteringer. Primært fordi kulturen er afgørende for vores individuelle og kollektive selvforståelse, og dermed i sidste ende også for vores evne til aktivt at forme fremtiden. Sekundært fordi oplevelser og kultur er et oplagt satsningsområde i fremtidens økonomi.

Bragt som debatindlæg i Politiken, d. 13.01. 2012

Tagged with: , ,

The museum as Public Domain

Culture, Museums, Politics No Responses »
Nov 112011

Today I attended the conference ”Sharing is caring – digital cultural heritage for all”. Lots of interesting presentations and discussions about how museums can – and should – use digital media, to make their collections more accessible, and to turn their audience into participants.

To do this we of course have to overcome technical obstacles. But probably even more organizational and even mental obstacles. And then there are all the issues raised by copyright and digital rights management. During the discussions of concepts such as Creative Commons and Public Domain, I got a sense of déjà vu. Suddenly it occurred to me: the museum as institution is inherently Public Domain.

Following Krzysztof Pomian,  a museum can be defined as a collection of natural or cultural objects
taken out of utilitarian circulation, placed under special protection and made
accessible to the public. Collections are nothing new in history. But the museum is not just a collection – it is a public collection. The museum, in a modern sense, does not belong to any individual – it belongs to an association, a public authority or the state. The private collection is a subjective endeavour, the public museum is inter-subjective. The museum has durability, independent of a human life span.

Museum visitor and future democratic citizen

The museum has its roots in the era of enlightenment and absolutism. But it acquired its present meaning with the formation of the bourgeois nation state. The museum, as we know it today, is closely connected with the concept of democracy: On one hand, it’s an element in the gradual recognition of the universal human rights to education and cultural fulfilment. On the other hand, the museum is also a vehicle for infusing national sentiments into the citizens, the new subjects of history, and to legitimate the nation-state.

The modern museum rests on the hope, that by looking at the objects – the left-over’s from history – in a certain, scientific way, it is possible to get behind their surface, and gain a deeper understanding of their original context, which we are otherwise separated from in time or space. This is the informative purpose of the museum.

But another, less obvious, but in reality equally important purpose of the modern museum, is
the formative one: through our relationship with the objects – whether this relationship takes the form of identification or alienation – we form an image of ourselves as individuals and collectives. The formative
role is a result of the simple fact that the museum does not exist in a time warp, but in its own historical context.

Thus, the role of the museum is twofold: it is on the one hand, created for information and understanding, and thus inherently retrospective. In the other hand, it’s created for forming society, and thus inherently oriented towards the present and the future.

The liberal bourgeoisie of the 19th century fully understood this. They build museums in order to be able to mobilize cultural history for their own political project: the museums were the piles of foundation, which bourgeois society hammered into the soil of history. And in a sense there is a parallel between representative democracy and the museum. In representative democracy, there are elections for parliament with regular intervals, but between elections decision-making is the sole prerogative of the politicians. In the same way, society employs museum professionals – not by election, though, but by an intellectual process of elimination – and once employed, interpretation of the past is the sole prerogative of the museum professionals.

Concepts such as web 2.0., social media, crowd-sourcing, etc. is challenging this concept of the museum. The challenge, however, is not new. It has been there for at least 50 years, if not more. An example:

Claims have been made, that it is no coincidence that the youth rebellion so far has totally ignored the museums. They are perceived (…) as repositories for left-over’s from previous societies, and simply not worth the effort.
It is undeniably true that museums are repositories - but they could be much more than that. (…) Exactly because the museums are dealing with all other societies than that, in which we actually live, they could become arsenals, from which arguments could be gathered for criticism of the present; points of departure for new ways of living

These are not the utopian reflections of some radical socialist. It’s a passage in an official report on cultural politics, published by the liberal-conservative Danish government in 1969. It’s not digital media that has put the participatory museum on the agenda. It is a change of political environment, which has made old concepts of citizenship gradually more and more obsolete.

What digital media has done is providing us with new, powerful tool, in our effort to realise the participatory museum. It’s no strange thing, that the museum community is excited about the new possibilities. We should use them to the maximum extent. But we should also realize that we are heading into a process, which is not only about changing the way museums disseminate knowledge and communicate with their audience. It is also a process, which has the potential of changing the formative role of the museum. We need to reflect on this and discuss the role of museums in society, just us as much as we need to discuss open API’s.

Who knows: just as museums in the 19th century acted as vehicles for bourgeois democracy, the participatory museum of the 21st century might be a vehicle for a new, even broader vision of democracy – a participatory democracy. Realising that the museum is inherently Public Domain – and should stay so, also in digital media – might be just a start.

—

Note: The argument is inspired by Krzysztof Pomian: ”Museet: Europas kvintessens”. Den jyske Historiker, nr. 64, 1993. (Sorry, but I’m not aware of an English version).

Tagged with: , ,

Hvilket Nationalmuseum vil I ha’?

Culture, Museums, Politics No Responses »
Aug 262011

Sorry, this post is in Danish only

D. 24.08. skriver Politiken igen om sikringen på Nationalmuseet. Det fremhæves bl.a., at der fremover vil være færre vagter i museets afdeling i Brede. Det er skidt. Men sikringen er desværre ikke det eneste offer for museets skrantende økonomi. I Brede findes også Nationalmuseets nyeste, faste udstilling, Brede Værk. I den gamle tekstilfabrik fortæller vi om det danske industrisamfunds historie. Her kan man se fabrikkens arbejdere og direktør komme til live i en interaktiv film, midt mellem de store tekstilmaskiner. Man kan prøve arbejdet ved samlebåndet på sin egen krop. Man kan se eksempler på hvordan industrialiseringen forandrede vores hverdag. Og til sidst kan man gi’ sit eget besyv med om industrisamfundets nutid og fremtid – en højst aktuel problemstilling.

Denne store udstilling er kun blevet til virkelighed, fordi velvillige fonde har bevilget et tocifret millionbeløb til etableringen. Driften skal derimod dækkes af museets faste bevilling. Men museet skal spare, så fra starten er åbningstiden indskrænket. Efterfølgende er der afsat et rundt 0 til markedsføring – med det resultat, at publikum udebliver fra en udstilling de aldrig har hørt om. Men så slipper de da for at opdage, at cafeen og butikken nu også er faldet som de seneste ofre for besparelserne.

Nationalmuseet har én million besøgende, plus de mange der følger os på nettet, læser vores publikationer, osv. De forventer kulturhistorisk formidling på et højt fagligt niveau, men også et museum som gør fortiden relevant for nutiden og fremtiden. Det knokler museets mange engagerede medarbejdere dagligt for at leve op til. Desværre må vi opleve, at opgaven bliver sværere og sværere at løfte. Stadig mere tid går med at flytte rundt på de sparsomme midler for at lappe de værste huller. Og som i tilfældet Brede Værk oplever vi, at vores arbejdsindsats undergraves af nye sparekrav.

Museet må selv prioritere, lyder standardsvaret fra politikerne, når de konfronteres med konkrete følger af nedskæringerne. Det kan museet også godt. Eksempelvis kan vi prioritere at holde sikkerheden helt i top. Det vil så blot kræve, at vi skærer endnu mere ned på andre aktiviteter, som f.eks. at udvikle og drive nye og engagerende udstillinger.

Nationalmuseet er nået til det punkt, hvor der ikke blot skæres ind til, men også ind i benet. Diskussionen bør derfor ikke kun handle snævert om sikkerheden på museet. Den bør handle om hele Nationalmuseets fremtid. Skal Danmark fortsat have et Nationalmuseum, som er levende, engageret og relevant for nutidens publikum? Eller skal museet skrue ned for ambitionerne, nedprioritere forskning og formidling, men til gengæld sikre fortiden et trygt liv på lukkede magasiner? Vi kan levere begge dele – men ikke til samme pris.

(Oprindeligt bragt som debatindlæg i dagbladet Politiken d. 25.08.2011. Dagen efter fulgte Politiken op med dette interview)

Tagged with: ,

Gotfredsens formørkelse

Culture, Politics 4 Responses »
Aug 032011

Sorry, this post is in Danish only

Anders Brevik følte sin eksistens truet af den kulturløse multikulturalisme, skriver Sørine Gotfredsen i Berlingskes kronik d. 29.7. Derfor greb han til ”konkrete midler” for at ”udrydde ideologien om mennesket som et abstrakt væsen, der ikke er afgørende forbundet med kulturelle og religiøse rødder.”

Forkert, Gotfredsen. Brevik myrdede 77 konkrete mennesker. Nogle af dem børn ned til 14-15 år. Alle sammen mennesker med navne, med et liv. Men Brevik myrdede dem ikke fordi han kendte dem. For ham var de bare symboler på det han var imod. Brevik myrdede for et princip, for en ideologi.

Det er ikke tilhængerne af multikulturalismen, hvad det så end er, der reducerer mennesket til en abstraktion. Det er dig, og de helte du opremser i din kronik. For jer er mennesket ikke først og fremmest et individ, med tanker, evner og vilje, men alene et produkt af sin kultur. Og kulturen er for jer noget konstant og uforandeligt: siden år 1100 har der gået et jerntæppe mellem den gode kultur og den dårlige. Som en karikatur af Grundtvig vrænger i: først kristen, siden menneske.

Både som individer og som samfund har vi en kulturarv. Men det er ikke en støbeform, som alting skal presses ind i, eller en målestok som præster og imamer skal bruge til at dømme individer inde eller ude. De kulturelle rødder er en resurse vi kan gøre brug af i vores liv, og kulturen sættes i spil og forandres i mødet med erfaringen.

Den kristen-nationale monokultur, som du og ligesindede forsøger at stampe op af jorden, er derimod en abstrakt konstruktion. Den er ubrugelig og umuligt at orientere sig efter, i en verden som bliver stadig mere dynamisk, kompleks og global. De der forsøger, ender med at opbygge megalomane fjendebilleder. På den led er der en stærk parallel mellem jer og de islamiske fundamentalister.

Det er netop sådanne fjendebilleder, hvor verden opdeles i et absolut godt og et absolut ondt, mens mennesker reduceres til abstrakte bærere af det ene eller det andet, der legitimerer terrorismen. Selv skriver du ikke et eneste medfølende ord om ofrene, men konstaterer at Anders Breviks rationale står ”lysende tilbage”. Nej det gør ikke – det er lige så forkert og formørket som Sørine Gotfredsens.

(Oprindeligt bragt som debatindlæg i Berlingske Tidende d. 2.8. 2011)

Tagged with: , , ,

Thoughts about Utøya

Politics 1 Response »
Jul 232011

Following the terrible shootings at Utøya and the bomb in Oslo, our thoughts must be with the friends and relatives of the dead and wounded and with the survivors, who presumably will forever be marked by what happened. However, also the Norwegian society will be marked by this tragedy for a long time to come, as will Denmark and other open societies.

Barely had the dust settled after the bomb in Oslo before the so-called terrorism expert Magnus Ranstorp of the Swedish Defence College said that it “probably” was Al-Qaeda who was responsible. At that time, all we knew was basically that a bomb had been detonated. But that was enough for the expert: a big bomb went off; ergo Islamists must have done it.

At the time of writing we know with certainty that it was a Norwegian with a strong right-wing and nationalist conviction, who carried out the massacre at Utøya. The Norwegian police also suspect him of being behind the bombing in Oslo. The man has taken part in various nationalist and xenophobic forums on the net. Evidence suggests that he is a lone, politically motivated madman, but it may not yet be ruled out that there was a coordinated action with several accomplices.

When “experts” and media (with Norwegian NRK as a positive exception) threw themselves into speculations on Islamic terror before anybody knew what really had happened, it says something about the present level of public debate. In fact, the terror carried out in Europe has many sources and motives. According to Europol less than one percent of terrorist episodes in the EU can be described as Islamist. It is true, that among the most spectacular and deadly attacks, we find the Islamist bombings in Madrid in 2004 and in London in 2005. But all in all, non-Islamist terrorists have probably claimed more European lives than Islamists.

Part of what characterizes terrorists, regardless of ideological leanings, is according to research, a sense of being the chosen one: one who has realized the injustice others has not yet seen, and who – not the least – are willing to take the consequences of this insight. Judging from the little we know, this was apparently true of the offender in Norway too. On the Internet, he has stated that Norway was under siege by multiculturalism and cultural Marxism, and that a politician like former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland was “a murderer of the nation”. According to the press rumour he started shooting at Utøya by declaring that “now began the purge”.

Looking closer at the statements which the offender has made, one will unfortunately recognize a great part from the Danish public debate. Not only from obscure web-sites of the extreme right, but also from mainstream media and even from the debate in Parliament. It should be a wakeup call for those politicians and others who have led the way in creating an “us-against-them” atmosphere in the debate. Of course there must be room for a free and open debate, including topics such as integration and immigration. But if you are touting an entire ethnic group as the nation’s enemies and political opponents as traitors, then you must realise that you are contributing to create a climate debate, confirming more extreme types in their twisted ideas.

Danish media and politicians should also consider whether their current view of radicalism and extremism may have been rightly focused. In 2009 the government launched an action plan to combat radicalization. It was quite broad in its analysis, and suggested a number of positive initiatives. But characteristically, the realisation was placed under the auspices of the Ministry of Integration and in the public debate it was clearly seen as an initiative directed specifically against Islamist radicalism and young people with immigrant backgrounds. Since yesterday, there is reason to put much more focus on fighting right wing and nationalist extremism, also in Denmark.

The tragedy in Norway has shown us that even in Scandinavia, we can breed terrorism from our own midst. Paradoxically, however, with his choice of target the perpetrator has also pointed us to the absolute contrast to terrorism and the best weapon against it: young people, engaged in an open and free debate about politics and their country’s development. The more open and inclusive the political system, the more enlightened and tolerant the public debate, the less breeding ground for terrorism. The best way to commemorate the victims in Norway will be to work for this.

Tagged with: ,

History of working hours

History, Politics No Responses »
Aug 182010

Last week, I appeared in radio. It was in a daily magazine program called “Apropos” on Danish Radio channel 1. Since the program was starting again after a summer break, the theme of the week was work.

My task was to tell the history of working hours: from the 10-11 hours workdays, dictated by the employers in the 1860’s, through the demand for an 8 hour day, raised by trade unions in 1899 and realized in 1919, until today’s 37 hours working week. We also discussed the reasons for lowering the workday throughout the 20th century. Finally I was asked about my view on future working hours: especially the actual, political proposal by the left to increase the work week with one hour.

The program is available (in Danish) on the “Apropos” website – or through direct download

Tagged with: , ,
Older Entries
Lars K. Christensen Credits