Archive for the ‘Art Management’ Category
Art Management
The late Dragan Klaic discusses his pioneering work in cultural policy studies at CEU
Posted by ghenador on December 6, 2011
Posted in Art Management, Cultural Policy, Education | Tagged: Dragan Klaic | Leave a Comment »
The winners of the Cultural Diplomacy residency for 2012
Posted by ghenador on November 29, 2011
We are happy to announce the winners of our Cultural Diplomacy Residency programme: Alexandra Rusu 
(for January-April), Ana-Maria Onisei (for April-July) and Ghenadie Sontu (for September-December).
Click here for the full list of candidates.
A big thank you to all applicants for their interest!
The main objectives of this innovative programme of training and coaching in cultural management are:
- To develop skills and abilities that are crucial in project management and cultural diplomacy;
- To acquaint with the standards and practices that characterize one of the most sophisticated and competitive cultural markets in the world
- To learn the working practices and procedures of the Romanian Cultural Institute.
The residency begins with an intensive theoretical and practical training at ICR London and at a British cultural partner institution. Afterwards, the residents will work within our team on cultural projects in different areas: literature, music, dance etc.
When: January-December 2012
Where: Romanian Cultural Institute London
Posted in ARS DOR, Art Management, Education, Europe | Tagged: ARS DOR, Ghenadie Sontu, ICR London | Leave a Comment »
Historical perspective: cultural policies and instruments
Posted by ghenador on November 8, 2011
Moldova as a country, territory or political entity has undergone great changes in the past few centuries and has a long history of foreign domination; indeed, questions of territory and cultural identity have been at the core of its development as an independent Republic.
At the dawn of the 19th century, Moldova was a province of Romania. In 1812, it was annexed by Tsarist Russia until 1917, when Moldova first declared itself a Democratic Republic. This political status was short lived as the parliament (Sfatul Ţării, – the National Council) voted for unification with Romania just 4 months later – resulting in a 22-year period when the Moldovan language and culture became increasingly more Romanian and Western-oriented. In 1940, Soviet forces reoccupied the Region. Moldova remained part of the USSR until the collapse of Communism in the early 1990s.
As in other USSR Republics or Eastern European countries, cultural policy was a propaganda tool of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Moldova. The Ministry of Culture and several arts associations were, therefore, obliged to conform to the Party’s ideology and to ensure that cultural policy and activities were carried out according to the Central Committee’s instructions.
Writers, artists and the cultural elite were also engaged as propaganda agents. The Committee granted them certain benefits and privileges in return for their efforts to consolidate the ideology of the system in a “credible and accessible” manner (Lenin’s slogan “art belongs to the people”). The totalitarian state controlled the process of creativity by valuing and rewarding works of “socialist realism” and rejecting a diversity of artistic approaches.
Arts associations were originally set up to monitor and promote artistic uniformity. As they became increasingly disparate and the composition of their membership was questioned, authorities set up three state Committees – for Publishing, Press and Radio-Television – to strictly monitor and censor the ideological content of literary and artistic works. They were also given the task of suppressing any expressions of affiliation to the Romanian language or culture. During the 47 years of Soviet occupation, Moldova was denied the right to their centuries-old common language, history and culture based on ancient, classical and contemporary Romanian traditions. The result was the disappearance of a distinct national culture during the period of Soviet Moldova. This fuelled a resistance and opposition to the ruling regime.
On 27 August 1991 the Republic of Moldova was declared an independent country. This historical event was precipitated by civil war. Public demands were made for official recognition of the Moldovan-Romanian linguistic identity, a return to the Latin alphabet, and the re-establishment of Romanian as the official language.
During the years 1991-2006, the main objectives of Moldovan cultural policies were:
to ensure conditions to promote creative works by preserving existing national institutions and revising procedures to remunerate artists for their work;
to protect the cultural heritage by improving the copyright system, supporting the publishing sector and developing archives;
to promote human potential through a reform of staff policy in the public cultural administration;
to support diverse cultural processes by identifying priorities and attracting human and material resources to realise these priorities;
to re-focus cultural management towards new models and mechanisms; and
to promote culture through electronic media and to create an integrated information space in the cultural field.
The most visible signs of change during this transition period were the freedom of speech, elimination of ideological censorship and development of legislation which has been modified to correspond with the rest of Europe. There are a large number of “good intentioned laws” in the Republic of Moldova, which have not yet been implemented or made viable on a practical level. Shallow reforms (too often understood as a simple reduction of funding) and the lack of a comprehensive cultural policy have also suspended the full implementation of cultural policy objectives.
During the communist governance, between 2001 – 2009, the results (performances) achieved with such a great effort were ruined one after another. Culture became again the most marginalised sphere, and all previously initiated projects degenerated into actions with a pronounced communist ideology.
The decentralisation process was suspended. The criterion of professionalism was replaced with the degree of servitude to power. Dozens of monuments and books were manufactured and published, with no historical or literary value, except for the glorification of the communist past.
The new ruling government, established in 2009, is a coalition of four parties with different social and cultural platforms. It was known from the beginning that this government is a transitional one, and will exist no longer than a year. Thus, the new ministries have not designed policies for the long or medium term.
Their only target was reanimating the country from the economic collapse and reinstating human rights and liberties, and the supremacy of the law.
From the cultural perspective, two new television stations appeared and a significant number of cultural events took place, which shows a great openness of the Moldovan culture toward the cultures of the world.
The 29 November 2010 was the day of the new parliamentary elections. These elections were particularly important, because they determined the path Moldova was to follow in the future.
However, the elections did not have the expected results. Although the governing coalition remained in power, the dissensions within the coalition have deepened, generating a prolonged political crisis. And, consequently, the announced reforms have been postponed, especially those in the field of justice, which are absolutely necessary for the future of Moldova.
Posted in Art Management, Cultural Financing, Cultural Policy, Moldova art, Moldova Culture | Tagged: Compendium, Moldova Cultural Policy | Leave a Comment »
World Art Managers Find New Funding Models In D.C.
Posted by ghenador on August 11, 2011
by ELIZABETH BLAIR,
Cultural diplomacy usually comes in the form of a traveling art exhibit or a celebrity visit to a war-torn country. But there’s a deeper kind of diplomacy taking place at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. For the past four summers, arts managers from around the world have been coming to D.C. for training on how to improve their organizations back home.
Each year’s class of fellows is a little like a United Nations of arts management. They come from every corner of the globe; Pakistan, Russia, Ecuador, Zanzibar, Cambodia and China to name a few. In most of these countries, nonprofit staples like capital campaigns and membership drives are unheard of.
“The funding system in the United States is different than most of the world,” says Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser. “We developed this private philanthropy model because of a separation of art and state that really emerged from the Puritans who thought that music and dance were evil.”
Today, an entire American industry, known as fundraising for nonprofits, has evolved from that “evil.”
Making An American Model Work Abroad
This summer, 36 arts managers from 28 different countries took a class taught by the Kennedy Center’s vice president for development. Among other things, they learned how to write a marketing plan and enlist volunteers.
But the question remains: How applicable are these American tools in, say, Nigeria, where earlier this year hundreds of people were killed in post-election violence?
Patrick Jude-Oteh runs a theater company in Jos, Nigeria. He says he had his doubts when he first heard Michael Kaiser teach. “I thought, ‘This cannot work in my environment. The environment is too volatile,’” Jude-Oteh says.
But now that he’s just completed his third summer as a Kennedy Center fellow, Jude-Oteh has changed his tune. He says one of the most important things he’s learned is to communicate directly with his audience.
“You get them involved in what you are doing,” he says. “The more people get excited, the more people are happy to be associated with you and that’s what has happened.”
Another fellow, Reem Kassem from Alexandria, Egypt recently did the unthinkable. Last February, a month after thousands of protesters clashed violently with police, Kassem organized an outdoor arts festival with dancers, musicians and workshops for children.
“It wouldn’t have gone without the new political situation in the country,” Kassem says. Under the old regime, she says, collective gatherings on the streets were prohibited.
During her summer at the Kennedy Center, Kassem was able to share the story with — and get help from — other fellows from all over the world. The director of a dance organization in the U.K., for example, suggested she ask wealthy Egyptians living in London or New York for support.
Kassem says she’ll return to Egypt equipped with a strategic plan to make the outdoor festival — called “Start With Yourself” — an annual event. “And I will come back [to Washington] next year with more questions,” she says.
‘We’re Saying Your Culture Is Important’
According to Michael Kaiser, cultural diplomacy is an important by-product of The Kennedy Center’s Summer International Fellowship program.
“We’re building long-term relationships with hundreds and hundreds of people who value our expertise,” he says. “We’re not saying our culture is important; we’re saying your culture is important and we want to make your organizations more robust.”
Posted in ARS DOR, Art Management, Consulting, Cultural Financing, Cultural Policy, Moldova Culture, Projects | Tagged: Art Management, DeVos Institute, Ghenadie Sontu, Kennedy Center, Managers, Michael M. Kaiser, Moldova | Leave a Comment »
Mission Statement
Posted by ghenador on August 8, 2011
Hosted by Sandra Gibson, President and CEO of Association of Performing Arts Presenters, and featuring Kennedy Center President Michael M. Kaiser, the Kennedy Center’s Arts in Crisis video series answers frequently asked questions heard at symposia on the Arts in Crisis national tour. Through July 2010, Michael Kaiser will travel to all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia in order to participate in arts community conversations that address the challenges facing non-profit performing arts organizations today through such areas as fundraising, building more effective Boards of Trustees, budgeting, and marketing. For more information about Arts in Crisis, please visit www.artsincrisis.org.
Posted in Art Management, Consulting, Cultural Policy, Education, Research | Tagged: Arts, Arts Budgets, Arts Management, Arts News, DeVos Institute, Fellows, Fellowship, Fundraising, Government Funding, Kennedy Center, Michael M. Kaiser, Mission Statement, Strategic Planning | Leave a Comment »
Eurointegration through Art
Posted by ghenador on April 5, 2011
Posted in ARS DOR, Art Management, Chisinau, Europe, Exhibitions, Moldova art, Moldova Culture, Projects | Tagged: ARS DOR, Eurointegration through Art | Leave a Comment »
Moldova Cultural Policy – Compendium
Posted by ghenador on February 28, 2011
Posted in ARS DOR, Art Management, Chisinau, Consulting, Cultural Financing, Cultural Policy, Education, Europe, Moldova art, Moldova Culture, Research | Tagged: Compendium, Moldova, Valeria Grosu | Leave a Comment »
Prof. Milena Dragićević Šešić: A collaborative, human and community engaging angle on cultural policy and management
Posted by ghenador on February 20, 2011
Author: Lidia Varbanova
Milena Dragićević Šešić is Professor of Cultural Policy & Management, former President of University of Arts in Belgrade. She is Head ofUNESCO Chair in Cultural Policy and Management (interculturalism and mediation in the Balkans) at the University of Arts, Belgrade. She is a prominent researcher in international projects in the field of cultural studies and cultural policies.Prof. Dragicevic-Sesic has published 100 essays and 15 books, among them: “Culture: management, animation, marketing”,” Neofolk culture”, “Art and alternative”, “ Horizons of reading”, “ Art management in turbulent times”, “Intercultural mediation in the Balkans”, translated in 16 languages.
1. What do you think are the main competences and traits which a young researcher in the field of cultural policy should obtain?
Methodological knowledge and skills – both for theoretical and empirical research, are of utmost importance – as in other research domains. At the same time, a cultural policy researcher has to have openness and abilities for interpretative and comparative analysis.
2. Considering your own experience, what would be your main advice to the young researchers who plan to pursue a career in the field of cultural policy?
I would advise young researchers to read a lot of different research and books from the “side fields” of cultural policy. Cultural policy is an interdisciplinary domain, therefore a researcher have to understand law, economy (both macro and microeconomic processes), sociology of culture, cultural studies, public policies, as well as cultural history, cultural management and contemporary art scene. This multidisciplinary knowledge is required so that researchers would be able to understand and elaborate new policy instruments. It is also important to constantly follow up what is new in many domains of science, and to read critical texts. This is not easy, but is the only way to enrich our own research work and give more “content”, as well as an adequate analytical background.
3. You have published many books and articles in diverse issues, related to cultural policy, and some of them are translated in several languages. What would be your advice to the young people to start publishing and making their work more visible internationally, both online and offline?
I would recommend (as I always do to my students) to young researchers to write a short text based on their empirical research – in order to bring some new and fresh ideas; then to send this text for reviews, first in their own country, and then abroad. This would give them a better chance that colleagues might read it and respond – especially those with similar interests. Then a bigger collaborative, maybe trans-border research project could start…
Conferences and professional gatherings are also good platforms for developing collaboration and finding adequate reviews for publishing texts. It is important to go there prepared – with precise and focused research interests, with ready texts, with project ideas, etc.
4. What was the worst professional advice which someone might have given you throughout your career?
Not to link research with action! I am still getting those advices, that if I want to be a “real and objective” researcher, I should avoid being part of the policy-related working groups who define new policy models and instruments and contribute to changing cultural policies…
I think that cultural policy is an applied discipline – it aims not only to discover and describe how things are, but how things MIGHT BE – for the sake of arts, artists and culture. Being involved in policy making, locally (in your city), nationally or internationally, might give different insights, new knowledge, fresh ideas and inspirations. This is the way how one could understand differently the practical needs, could also see the limits of the policy instruments, or the conflicting interest of different public policies. When you are only a cultural policy researcher, you could see the world only from one aspect. When you go down to real life, multiple perspectives start to open.
5. What are the main motivating factors for you to continue your work as a researcher and educator?
Combining research, education and policy-making provides an opportunity to change, to develop, and to understand contemporary cultural processes. Every new research opens to me new horizons, new approaches, and new views. Every generation of students brings something different to the class and to my research work, as well as teaching approach. I am a curious person, so, it is difficult to stop researching and teaching. Besides researching and analyzing European as well as Balkan cultural policies and practices since many years, I recently researched also cultural policies of the Arab world. Last year I explored theatre policies and practices in India….and I hope I will have time to follow-up these researches, to reflect in a critical manner and to share it with others.
6. For already 9 years, you lead the MA Programme in Cultural Policy and Management at the University of Arts, in cooperation with Universite de Lyon 2. What is the uniqueness of this program? What are its main goals?
The specificity of this program is that it is truly international: professors come from the region (Croatia, Slovenia, Romania, etc.), from Western Europe (Germany, France, Austria, Holland, etc.), as well as from overseas (Canada, USA). The students are also international, as the program is conducted in English and French. The main goal is to educate CULTURAL PROFESSIONALS, capable to do a research, to manage a festival, as well as to CONCEPTUALIZE a cultural program, to curate a cultural event, to create an intercultural mediation program, etc. It is up to student to define his/her future profession – would it be in the field of research, policy making, cultural administration, art production, cultural management, cultural mediation, etc. Our former students find jobs in ministries of culture, in the city administrations, as producers of big cultural events, in theaters and museums. Many of them manage their own small-scale NGOs, cultural agencies, or act as mediators/educators in museums, archives, libraries, etc. So, we do not teach them how to become “successful” – in a sense to gain a lot of money, to become art dealers, or commercial producers (although there are some), or to become very famous and glamorous cultural producers surrounded by stars… We teach them how to be human, how to serve the communities, how to bring together artists and audiences, and especially – how to involve as well as engage potential audiences in cultural practices. And something else which is very important for our region – not just to look for a vacancy, but to create jobs using their creativity and inspiration, their own ideas and initiatives.
The same approach applies to research – one might enter an already established institution and get a research task, or could create his/her own “cultural observatory”, cultural consultancy or agency, and then conduct research in areas which are important and interesting.
7. On your opinion, are there any errors or weaknesses in the way we teach cultural policy subject in the programmes curricula across Europe? Do you see any changes and new trends in our methodological approaches?
The problem is that it is quite difficult to become a cultural policy researcher if you study all educational levels (bachelor, master, PhD) in one and the same educational instituion. I think it is necessary to change. In my own professional life, it was of utmost importance that I studied at an art school, than I did a Master Degree in the field of sociology in France (D.E.A.), and then I completed Ph.D at the Department of Cultural Studies in the University of Belgrade. If I had an opportunity to do some postdoctoral studies in public policies, it would be also very beneficiary. This is why when we created the internationa Master Degree program (the UNESCO Chair), we decided to cooperate with different universities which do not have the same area of studies. We, as an art university, have entered partnership with the sociology and anthropology department of Lyon II university and with the Faculty of Political sciences in Grenoble. We enriched the program by engaging also professors in economics from the Faculty of Economy in Belgrade. As I already mentioned – we do that, because cultural policy and cultural management subjects are truly interdisciplinary.
8. In brief, what are your professional plans for the year 2011?
I intend to finish my book about Culture of Dissent (last 20 years in the Western Balkans). I plan also to finish my research about Memory policies as part of cultural policies (focusing on monument building practices) – this research will be part of a book – to be published by Culturelink, Zagreb (edited by Nada Švob Djokić and Aldo Milohnić). I will also work with Branimir Stojković on the 6th edition of our book “Culture, management, marketing”.
Colleagues from Finland, Jyvaskyla with many partner universities from other countries (mine included) had successfully developed COST project (culture within sustainable development). Our real collaboration will begin this year.
The highlight for this year will be in October 2011 when the Department for the Management and Production in Theatre, Culture and Media of Faculty of Drama Arts, University of Arts in Belgrade will celebrate 50 years of its existence. We think that we are the oldest Cultural management department in Europe. For this occasion I am preparing a book, dealing with the history of the Department, and the future of our discipline. Part of this book will be devoted to the first Yugoslavian meeting of professors of cultural policy, organized in 1988 in Zagreb. It would be pity to send this event to oblivion, as Yugoslavia was in those years one of the few countries worldwide with developed cultural policy research, as well as cultural policy teaching as an academic discipline. The “Belgrade and Zagreb schools of cultural policy research” have produced a lot of research, but unfortunately not in English, and therefore – it still stays unknown and not acknowledged internationally.
Posted in Art Management, Consulting, Cultural Policy, Education, Europe, Research | Tagged: Cultural Policy, Milena Dragićević Šešić, prominent voices, Research, young cultural policy researchers forum | Leave a Comment »
Cultural Policy Research Award
Posted by ghenador on February 16, 2011
A unique opportunity for young cultural researchers seeking to make a break into the research field and contribute to the production of new knowledge: the annual Cultural Policy Research Award (CPRA) is now open for applications.
With the Award, ECF, the Riksbankens Jubileumfond and ENCATC aim to encourage and enable cultural policy researchers to undertake comparative and cross-cultural applied research. The Award is devoted to research projects which shed light on contemporary European cultural issues and challenges. The CPRA prize money is 10,000 euros and is awarded to cultural policy researchers aged up to 35 years old, from wider Europe. Nominees are selected by an international jury of eminent European cultural policy researchers.
Applications for the 2011 Award must be submitted between 15 February and 30 May 2011, through the online application form on the CPRA website. More information on timelines and eligibility can also be found there.
ECF is committed to work across Europe and its neighbouring regions to inspire change through arts and culture. Visit this page for more information on our advocacy work.
Posted in Art Management, Cultural Policy, Education, Europe, Research | Tagged: Cultural Policy, Cultural Policy Research Award, Europe, Research | Leave a Comment »
Strategic Planning for Learning Organisations in the Cultural Sector
Posted by ghenador on February 2, 2011
A new book by Lidia Varbanova
Efficient management and leadership of any cultural organisation are immensely connected with the strategic planning process. Setting up the mission and vision, diagnosing and analysing the current situation within a constantly changing environment, elaborating the right set of strategies, functional plans and actions to achieve a desired future state and making them happen, actually cover the whole spectrum of functions that a successful manager needs. Creating tomorrow today is not an easy process but, if we do not envisage where we want to be, why and how to get there, ’tomorrow’ may not be the one we dreamt about. The concept of a “learning organisation” has become increasingly popular for modern organisations in all sectors, including arts and culture. It refers to the ability of an organisation to transform itself within a constantly changing context and escalating complexity by using unlimited mental capacity of its members, their ability to think critically and creatively.
Why this book is unique
- Strategic planning tools in the book are adapted well to the uniqueness of a cultural organisation and creative processes. The author understands well how cultural and artistic organisations operate in a constantly changing environment and financial pressure.
- The book proposes a well elaborated set of strategies (main organisational strategies, marketing and product strategies, as well as functional strategies) and provides plenty of examples on how these strategies could be elaborated and implemented in the cultural sector.
- The book offers a set of elements of the human resource management system in a cultural organisation and deals with diverse strategies related to human resources, especially the one which stimulate motivation, education and development.
- The author discusses complicated marketing concepts and terminology in a digested and simple language, with examples on using marketing-mix concept, developing audiences, elaborating communication plans in the arts.
- The book provides a clear practical orientation on the main elements in financial planning process in a close relation with fundraising techniques and practices, as well as sponsorship and alternative methods of support.
- The value of the book is also that each chapter ends with a clear guidelines and examples on how a concrete part of a strategic plan might look like. It is a well elaborated “guidebook” providing step-by-step practical help in elaboration of a strategic plan for any type of cultural organisation.
This book is a useful resource for cultural managers, directors of cultural organisations, cultural mediators, Board members, policy-makers, or project leaders who need a step-by-step approach in understanding the theoretical framework, the process of developing and the application of a strategic plan for a concrete organisation in the cultural sector (be it state subsidized, business-orientated or non-profit). The book is also useful for cultural researchers, consultants, students and academia as it provides a bridge between theory and practice, between methodology and its use in the management planning process. Artists could also benefit from the handbook, as it would help them to shift their mind from creative processes into the pragmatic language of management and economy in order to learn how to handle their organisations or projects in the long-term and within today’s world of money and markets.
The book is supported by the European Cultural Organisation and MATRA Programme of the Dutch Government, published in Russian and Romanian by Soros Foundation Moldova. The English edition will be published in 2011.
See photos from the launch of the book in Chisinau, Moldova: http://www.lidiavarbanova.ca/main/gallery/book-launch-moldova/
——————-
“This excellent handbook offers valuable theoretical background and practical help to cultural organisations to develop a coherent strategic approach to their work. I encourage cultural practitioners as well as students to consider the book’s helpful advice, and to put into practice the principles, processes and techniques that will improve their effectiveness and impact.” Robert Palmer Director of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage Council of Europe
“Ms Varbanova has had the courage to present cultural organizations with a handbook on strategic planning. I honestly think that she should be congratulated for having done so. Her work is very clear, structured and thorough but, above all, this book contributes to breaking – hopefully! – the ill conceived belief, and the myths that follow from it, that management techniques, innovative or classical, cannot be applied to the cultural sector and to cultural organizations. Indeed every profession each has its specificities.” Mercedes Giovinazzo Director, Interarts, Barcelona President, Culture Action Europe
“A central goal of this publication is to provide its readers with a solid sourcebook for writing their strategic documents. However, an even more important goal is to inspire managers operating in the arts and culture and to enable them to realize new ways of learning, working, thinking and creating strategies for change. In times of ongoing transition and a critical need for systemic innovation not only in post-socialist countries but all over the world, tools for realizing new strategic approaches are more important than ever before.” Philipp Dietachmair and Dilia Ham European Cultural Foundation Amsterdam, the Netherlands
“The contemporary practice of management is going through changes and challenges. New conditions engendered by the crisis and the ongoing instability make constant revision and update essential. The culture sector, by its very nature, requires such flexible strategic approaches as essential. Lidia Varbanova’s book responds exactly to such complexities and requirements, as well as reveals itself as a perfect reference book for the professionals and managers in the culture sector, as well as for academia and students. The book illustrated with examples, assures convenience for creative solutions.” Assoc. Prof. Dr. Serhan Ada Head, Cultural Management Department Istanbul Bilgi University Turkey “Lidia Varbanova has an outstanding career as a professor and international consultant in issues related to strategies and management in the cultural sector and beyond. The modern cultural manager, administrator and thinker finds in Varbanova’s handbook a nurturing and useful read for the day to day work, but also for the medium and long term visionary attitude one has to entertain in this specific domain. Being precise and fully documented, filtered by both academic thinking and hands-on practice, this is a book that artists, intellectuals, students and cultural operators alike must read.” Corina Suteu Director Romanian Cultural Institute New York
“I think Lidia Varbanova’s book would indeed be a welcome addition to the cultural management field here in Canada. I would have welcomed such a resource back in 1999, when the NAC embarked on its first Strategic Plan: despite having been in the arts management business for many years, I had gained no experience in this area. It is indeed needed and very helpful.”
Heather Moore Producer and Executive Director National Arts Centre/Centre national des Arts Ottawa, Canada“I believe this publication will provide valuable tools and perspectives for many cultural organizations.I think it will be very useful as a tool for boards and executives working on their planning processes and it will also be a wonderful textbook for arts administration university programs.” Trudy Schroeder Executive Director Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra Canada
“While the cultural sector as a whole has become a valuable part of both the Canadian identity and the country’s economy, cultural organizations are often fragile and quick to feel the effects of political changes or a downturn in the overall economy. Lidia Varbanova proposes a well-elaborated set of strategies that, if followed, will be of lasting benefit in sustaining artistic excellence and service to the community. She provides plenty of examples on how these strategies can be chosen and used. In particular she places emphasis on strategies related to: building and engaging audiences; partnerships; innovation; networking; co-productions of all kinds; as well as the critical importance of ongoing advocacy” John Hobday Former Director of the Canada Council for the Arts and Executive Director of the Samuel and Saidye Bronfman Family Foundation Canada
Posted in Art Management, Consulting, Cultural Financing, Cultural Policy, Education, Projects, Research | Tagged: Cultural Policy, cultural policy researchers, ECF, Lidia Varbanova, Planificare Strategica, Politici Culturale, project management, Soros, Strategic Planning for Learning Organisations in the Cultural Sector | Leave a Comment »
SECŢIILE RAIONALE DE CULTURĂ ŞI-AU ELABORAT STRATEGIILE CULTURALE ÎN CADRUL UNUI PROIECT REALIZAT TIMP DE TREI ANI
Posted by ghenador on December 18, 2010
Secţiile raionale de cultură din R.Moldova şi-au elaborat strategiile culturale pentru perioada 2011-2015 în cadrul proiectului „Consolidarea capacităţilor de dezvoltare a Moldovei prin întărirea sectorului cultural”, realizat în perioada 2007-2010.
Vineri, în cadrul unei conferinţe de presă susţinută la agenţia INFOTAG, în cadrul căreia s-au făcut totalurile proiectului, directorul Fundaţiei Culturale Europene, care a implementat proiectul în Moldova alături de Fundaţia Soros-Moldova, Catherine Watson, a menţionat că proiectul a avut drept scop să investească în oamenii care activează în domeniul culturii, pentru a le aprofunda cunoştinţele la capitolul planificării strategice.
Proiectul a presupus organizarea mai multor seminare şi trening-uri cu şefii secţiilor de cultură, care au fost instruiţi cum să-şi planifice activităţile culturale, de unde să găsească surse financiare şi cum să identifice potenţialul cultural local.
Directorul de programe a Fundaţiei Soros-Moldova, Victoria Miron, a subliniat că cea mai mare realizare a acestui proiect este că oamenii din domeniul culturii au învăţat cum să guverneze singuri acest sector, extrem de important pentru fiecare ţară.
„Pentru a avea rezultate concrete în domeniul culturii, trebuie să pornim de la a elabora corect politicile culturale. Spre regret, cultura în Moldova funcţionează doar de la un eveniment la altul şi nu există o viziune mai largă în acest sens”, a spus Miron.
Expertul internaţional în politici culturale din România, Corina Răcean, a menţionat că în cadrul proiectului şefii secţiilor raionale de cultură au fost instruiţi cum să descopere singuri posibilităţile de dezvoltare a culturii.
„De multe ori pentru soluţionarea problemelor culturii se invocă lipsa banilor. Convingerea mea este că banii nu sînt o problemă, ei sînt un instrument pentru a rezolva problemele”, consideră expertul.
Directorul Centrului de Politici Culturale, Veaceslav Reabcinschi, a menţionat că ar fi bine ca ceea ce s-a întîmplat la nivel local să fie transferat la nivel central, precizînd că la moment R.Moldova, la nivel central, nu dispune de o strategie culturală pe termen mediu sau lung.
„Este trist, dar în Moldova nu există politici culturale. Cel mai elocvent exemplu în acest sens este faptul că în cadrul campaniei electorale nici un partid în programul său electoral nu a avut stabilite politici în domeniu culturii. Noi credem că este foarte periculos dacă un partid politic care vine la guvernare nu ştie ce va face cu cultura”, consideră sursa citată.
Bugetul proiectului a fost de 465 mii euro, dintre care 350 mii euro au fost oferiţi de Programul de Transformare Socială (MATRA) al Ministerului Afacerilor Externe al Olandei, circa 100 mii euro oferiţi de Fundaţia Culturală Europeană şi aproximativ 20 mii euro de Fundaţia Soros-Moldova.
Posted in ARS DOR, Art Management, Cultural Financing, Cultural Policy, Education, Moldova art, Moldova Culture, Projects, Research | Tagged: ECF, Soros | Leave a Comment »
Viziuni de viitor: politica culturală a Republicii Moldova: de la schimbări la viabilitate
Posted by ghenador on November 26, 2010
În cadrul proiectului-pilot, cu sprijinul Fundației Soros Moldova și FCE, Amsterdam, a fost produsă şi publicată cartea “Viziuni de viitor: politica culturală a Republicii Moldova: de la schimbări la viabilitate”. Această activitate a avut ca scop inițierea procesului de consolidare a capacitaților în sectorul cultural din Republica Moldova și cuprinde rezultatele unei serii de activități organizate în cadrul proiectului-pilot.
Posted in ARS DOR, Art Management, Consulting, Cultural Financing, Cultural Policy, Education, Moldova Culture, Research | Tagged: ECF, Moldova Cultural Policy, Soros | Leave a Comment »
Culture and Creative Industries in Germany 2009 Monitoring of Selected Economic Key Data on Culture and Creative Industries
Posted by ghenador on November 3, 2010
What are we talking about?
Culture ministers of the EU met informally in October and saw to it that cultural and creative industries shall remain on the agenda. The exact relationship of the two sets (cultural and the rest), or put it differently, the direct competence of cultural politicians in the issue was not specified – keeping this habit from earlier papers and events.
Michael Söndermann has been assiduously monitoring the German creative sector for a while, and here is his latest report. Data from the largest economy in Europe are appropriate for defining the relative weight of culture proper within the creative sector. (The study applies the most common definition for these industries.)
As usual, the German book market had a robust turnover also in 2009, twice as much as the second largest cultural domain, the film industry. The eleven creative branches represented 2.7% of the economic value added in Germany – roughly the same share since 2003.
BO would warn against the division between the “subsidised sector” and these culture industries. In fact a lot of public support arrives to them, rightly, and in conformity with Article 107(3)(d) (formerly 87) of the EU Treaty.
Who are we talking about?
The comparison of the two graphs shows that the cultural branches produce more than their share in the workforce. Which is mostly due to the opposite performance of the book and the software market: 6% of people create 10% of revenue in the first case, while the software sector employs a third of the creative workforce and produces a fifth of the turnover only. Would you have thought so without Michael’s statistics?
The miraculous book sector is comprised of nearly 75 thousand people: 38 thousand publishers, 30 thousand booksellers and – believe or not – 6903 ‘own account writers’ (31% more than in 2003).
The circle with eleven slices represents a little more than one million jobs, including the self-employed. They are 3.35% of the German labour force. This number has grown bit by bit from 3.12% in 2003. On the other hand, although the absolute number of jobs in the five culture branches has also grown by tiny bits, their relative share fell below 20% within the eleven industries, from above 21% before 2006.
Regional Observatory on Financing Culture in East-Central Europe
(The Budapest Observatory) http://www.budobs.org
Posted in Art Management, Consulting, Cultural Financing, Cultural Policy, Europe, Research | Tagged: Creative Industries, Cultural Industry, Report, Trends | Leave a Comment »
People of art and representatives of parties sign “Culture 2015” Convention
Posted by ghenador on October 24, 2010
Representatives of cultural institutions and organizations and of political parties Saturday signed the Convention on the Support and Development of Culture in Moldova “Culture 2015”. According to the signatories, the agreement is aimed at modernizing and integrating Moldova’s culture into the global one, Info-Prim Neo reports.
Stage manager Sandu Grecu, the head of the Theater Union of Moldova, said the political parties are interested in creating an own image as culture should not represent a means of promoting the political interests. The Convention “Culture 2015” is designed to divide the political affairs from culture. The two will have only a slight connection.
According to Sandu Grecu, the accord will facilitate the protection and integration of the cultural patrimony in the system of European values. The legal framework will be improved, while the system for financing culture will be reformed.
“The aim of the Convention is to set a new development course for culture in Moldova. When they speak about culture, especially the politicians, they make only declarations. In order to develop culture, we need an exact plan of action. The cultural community should be involved in decision making on cultural problems,” said the head of the Cultural Politics Center Veaceslav Reabchinski.
The Convention on the Support and Development of Culture in Moldova “Culture 2015” was signed by the parties of the Alliance for European Integration and a number of cultural institutions. Among the main steps stipulated in the agreement are the approval of laws on the Cultural Fund, the Creation Unions and the Status of the Man of Art. There will be opened a center for training employees working in culture and formulated a program to support the mobility of cultural products.
Posted in Art Management, Cultural Financing, Cultural Policy, Moldova Culture, Projects | Tagged: ANUC, “Culture 2015” Convention, Fondul Culturii, Moldova Culture | Leave a Comment »
Strengthening capacities in the cultural sector: info sessions in Brussels on 21 October and Kiev on 25 October
Posted by ghenador on October 21, 2010
EuropeAid is holding information sessions in Brussels on Thursday 21 October and Kiev on 25 October on the joint Investing in People/Eastern Partnership Culture Programme call for proposals for Strengthening capacities in the cultural sector (reference: EuropeAid/129338/C/ACT/Multi).
The Brussels session will take place from 8.45am-1pm at the Palais des Beaux Arts, Rue Ravenstein 23. The venue will be available until 5pm, for participants attending the meeting and wishing to have internal discussions between themselves.
The Kiev session will take place from 8.30am-1pm at the Hotel Vozdvyzhensky. The venue will be available until 5pm, for participants attending the meeting and wishing to have internal discussions between themselves. The presentations will be made in English, with Russian interpretation. Questions and answers will be formulated in English and Russian.
The meetings are organised for information purposes only in order to present the objectives and technical contents of the call as well as the rules and procedures governing the submission and evaluation of applications as these are detailed in the guidelines for grant applicants.
The PowerPoint Presentation used at the information sessions will be published on the EuropeAid Calls for Proposals webpage at http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/funding/index_en.htmtogether with the other documents for the call on 21 October 2010.
Registration is required for applicants wanting to take part in the sessions. For details, download the agendas below.
The overall objective of the call for proposals is to contribute to the creation of a political, regulatory, institutional and economic environment conducive to the strengthening of the cultural sectors and their actors as a vector for sustainable economic, social and human development.
The call targets governance at regional, national and local level focusing on aspects related to the role, management, structure, operating modes and representativeness of professional associations and groups, networks of cultural actors and civil society organisations active in the area of culture and its sectors.
The organisation of cultural or artistic activities must not be the main objective of proposed actions. Nevertheless, some such activities may be included provided that they constitute a minor part of the action and contribute to the achievement of the specific objectives mentioned above.
The call for proposals is divided into two lots – Lot 1: ‘Investing in People’ (€7million)and Lot 2: Eastern Partnership Culture Programme (€8.4 million) – with the same overall objective but some different specific objectives and different geographic dimensions.
The deadline for the submission of Concept Notes for the call is 19 November 2010. (ENPI Info Centre)
Posted in Art Management, Cultural Financing, Cultural Policy, Europe, Projects | Tagged: Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum | Leave a Comment »
Reabcinschi: Este cel puţin anacronic să mai finanţăm cultura pe cap de locuitor
Posted by ghenador on September 24, 2010
Deşi fizician de formaţie, Veaceslav Reabcinschi (foto) e preocupat de business şi… politici culturale. 
De zece ani, conduce Centrul de Politici Culturale din RM şi încearcă să schimbe sistemul de funcţionare a domeniului culturii. Săptămâna trecută, Centrul a făcut public studiul „Rolul caselor de cultură din RM în politicile culturale locale, raionale, naţionale” – un studiu din care am aflat că, la începutul lui 2010, în RM existau 1228 case de cultură, 618 dintre care, fiind mai vechi de 50 de ani, necesită o reparaţie capitală, în perioada rece a anului se încălzesc doar 302 case şi cămine de cultură (majoritatea din ele – parţial, cu sobe), iar 24 sunt deconectate de la curentul electric. „Satele noastre se încăpăţânează să reziste şi să renască prin cultură, dar ar trebui să le dăm şi noi o mână de ajutor”, este convins Veaceslav Reabcinschi…
- Dle Reabcinschi, există act cultural în teritoriu? Percepţia generală e că toate evenimentele de anvergură se consumă în capitală, la Chişinău…
- Bineînţeles că există, deşi nu sunteţi singura marcată de această percepţie. Ea derivă din faptul că evenimentele culturale ce au loc azi în afara capitalei sunt puţin cunoscute la nivel naţional. Şi pentru că nu sunt reflectate aproape deloc în presă, apare şi senzaţia că în raioane şi în sate nu au loc evenimente culturale de calitate înaltă.
- Dar ce se întâmplă?
- Am exemple cu duiumul… Bunăoară, în raionul Străşeni, în fiecare august, are loc Eminesciana. Este deja un festival internaţional, la care participă oameni de cultură din România, din alte ţări. Apropo, cu excepţia TIMPULUI, se pare, nu ştiu dacă alte mass-media au reflectat acest frumos eveniment. Vorbeam cu dna Nistor, şefa Direcţiei cultură din Străşeni, şi ea era extrem de nedumerită, decepţionată chiar: am invitat presa naţională, e la o azvârlitură de băţ de Chişinău – chiar nu prezintă deloc interes?.. Acum câteva zile, la Cantemir s-a desfăşurat Festivalul „Nicolae Sulac”, în memoria rapsodului. E un eveniment de amploare, la care participă artişti din tot sudul RM şi din zona economică liberă Dunărea de Jos. Evenimente culturale se întâmplă aproape în fiecare săptămână în republică.
- Poate că această atitudine vine din preconcepţia că tot ce se face în afara Chişinăului nu e modern şi actual, ci, dimpotrivă, e şi provincial?
- Evident că nu putem compara Festivalul „Invită Maria Bieşu” sau cel de Jazz cu acţiunile organizate în teritoriu, la nivel local. Dar tocmai pentru ca aceste evenimente naţionale majore să fie gustate şi apreciate de public, este nevoie să promovăm actul cultural „din faşă”. Adică, dacă vrem ca oamenii să vină la operă, trebuie să-i obişnuim cu frumosul din copilărie, la ei acasă. E adevărat că, deocamdată, multe evenimente au un caracter cumva haotic. Adică, de regulă, în satele noastre activitatea culturală e concentrată mai mult pe păstrarea tradiţiilor, respectiv, constatăm că secţiile de cultură încep să se repete. De aceea, acum trei ani, Fundaţia SOROS şi Fundaţia Culturală Europeană au lansat proiectul „Consolidarea sectorului cultural în RM”. Timp de trei ani, am lucrat cu secţiile de cultură, încercând să le schimbăm viziunea, să vedem prin ce un raion se poate deosebi de altul. Inovaţia a adus şi participanţi, şi spectatori la evenimente. La Călăraşi, de exemplu, dna Tatiana Popa, amfitrioana muzeului „Casa părintească”, a iniţiat Festivalul Sânzienelor, cu toate tradiţiile ce ţin de această sărbătoare. Este un spectacol inedit, care nu se mai repetă în altă parte… Raionul Cahul s-a orientat spre dansuri – unde se dansează mai virtuos decât în această zonă? Iar Briceniul încearcă turişti prin tradiţiile de iarnă păstrate acolo. Astfel, nişte politici culturale reuşite pot fi şi un generator pentru turismul rural… Avem şi exemple de succes economic prin cultură. În una dintre comunităţi – n-o să vă spun care, ca să fie surpriză – este în toi pregătirea pentru Festivalul Perjei. Este un sat în care o bună parte din populaţie se ocupă cu uscatul prunelor şi agenţii economici de acolo şi-au propus să-şi facă mai cunoscută producţia prin folclor. Un asemenea eveniment atrage spectatori, dar şi potenţiali parteneri economici… Iar într-un sat cu doar vreo 800 de locuitori din Leova, primăriţa a creat o formaţie din… angajaţii primăriei. Din concurs în concurs, au fost invitaţi şi în România, au cunoscut oameni, apoi au accesat programe de colaborare transfrontalieră şi, timp de trei ani, au realizat deja 12 proiecte. Şi, de fapt, totul a pornit de la un grup artistic.
- În ce măsură aceste activităţi sunt complementare cu cele elaborate de Ministerul Culturii? Ori sunteţi ca două drepte paralele?..
- Acum trei ani, când a fost pornit proiectul, ideea era şă lucrăm împreună cu administraţia publică locală, reprezentată de secţiile de cultură raionale, cu Ministerul Culturii, cu instituţiile şi organizaţiile neguvernamentale, scopul fiind să învăţăm mecanismele de planificare strategică în domeniul culturii. Din păcate, Ministerul Culturii, care la început a susţinut lansarea acestui proiect, mai târziu s-a retras din implementarea lui. Noua conducere a ministerului a manifestat interes de acest program, însă timpul a fost perdut. Şi astăzi, pe lângă multitudinea de evenimente care se întâmplă, la nivel local, în 24 de raioane deja sunt elaborate strategii culturale pentru anii 2011-2015. Majoritatea raioanelor ştiu ce va fi cu cultura în următorii ani. Ceea ce nu putem spune despre organele centrale.
- Apropo de colaborarea cu autorităţile, în curând se va împlini un an de la foarte promiţătorul Congres al oamenilor de cultură, la care a participat şi conducerea de vârf a RM şi care părea decisă să mişte carul din loc…
- Da, atunci au fost trasate obiective de scurtă şi de lungă durată, iar încă noua, la acel moment, guvernare îşi asumase nişte angajamente clare, printre care elaborarea politicii culturale a RM – adică, ce sistem cultural vrem să construim în ţara noastră şi aprobarea Legii Fondului Culturii, al cărei proiect a fost prezentat în cadrul congresului. Din păcate, nimic nu şi-a găsit continuare şi, la aproape un an de zile, nu avem nici legea, nici vreun semnal că s-ar începe lucrul la elaborarea politicilor culturale. Dar o strategie de o asemenea anvergură nu poate fi elaborată într-un singur birou – e nevoie de diferite puncte de vedere, de implicarea tuturor actorilor sociali, de dezbateri. Eu, bunăoară, sunt adeptul aşa-zisului sistem nordic în cultură. Dar acesta e punctul meu de vedere, pe când o bună parte din administratorii noştri culturali se pare că preferă aşa-zisul sistem latin, centralizat, de subvenţionare a culturii.
- Ne puteţi face o „descifrare” a acestor sisteme?
- Sistemul latin e cel pe care l-am moştenit din perioadă sovietică şi care, într-o ţară ca a noastră, nu este eficient. Căci nu avem resurse financiare suficiente pentru a asigura activitatea tuturor instituţiilor de cultură. Dar nu putem adopta nici sistemul aglo-saxon sau liberal, precum e în SUA sau Marea Britanie, unde cultura nu este susţinută de stat, fiind privită ca o afacere. La noi instituţiile culturale ar muri în câteva luni… De aceea şi optez pentru sistemul nordic, bazat pe principiul descentralizării finanţării instituţiilor de cultură. Adică, artistul poate obţine susţinere din mai multe surse. Ministerul Culturii asigură funcţionarea a doar câteva instituţii-cheie – Teatrul Naţional, Opera Naţională, Filarmonica… Restul – persoane sau instituţii – elaborează proiecte şi le depun la diferite instituţii, abilitate atât cu colectarea banilor, cât şi cu selectarea candidaţilor. Pentru ca acest lucru să se întâmple, e nevoie de adoptarea urgentă a unui şir de legi, inclusiv a legii Fondului Culturii.
- Aţi lansat şi o campanie socială pentru promovarea acestei legi – „Un vot pentru cultură”. De ce nici actualul Legislativ nu votează pentru cultură?
- Nu apucă s-o facă, mai curând… Primul proiect de lege în acest sens l-am prezentat încă în 2005. A fost modificat de o asemenea manieră, încât fusese distrusă ideea de bază a fondului, la care noi privim nu ca la o sursă de bani, ci ca la un mecanism nou de finanţare a instituţiilor de cultură. Din care cauză, l-am retras. În 2009, salutând noua guvernare democratică, am venit cu un nou proiect de lege. Şi iarăşi aşteptăm. Se află deja în Parlament, dar teamă mi-e că, dacă nu se va acţiona rapid, după viitoarele alegeri va trebui s-o luăm de la capăt.
- De ce este atât de principial să modificăm sistemul de finanţare a culturii?
- Pentru că şi în domeniul culturii avem legi bune, care nu funcţionează însă tocmai din cauza finanţării defectuoase – o verigă ce n-a fost reformată şi care împiedică modernizarea domeniului. Mecanismul alocaţiilor pentru cultură a rămas acelaşi ca pe timpul URSS – pe cap de locuitor, pentru anul 2010 normativul fiind de 85,5 lei Astfel, avem sate cu 8000 de locuitori, oficial, care primesc 650 de mii de lei pentru cultură şi care nu au barem o activitate culturală. Aceşti bani, bineînţeles, se duc altundeva decât la necesităţile culturale. E absurd. Dovadă şi cazul relatat de dna Elena Frumosu, şefa Direcţiei Cultură din Criuleni, care spunea că a trebuit să convingă aleşii locali din Maşcauţi că banii veniţi pentru renovarea Casei de cultură, nu pot fi utilizaţi pentru reparaţia drumurilor…
- Ce să facem dacă drumurile într-adevăr sunt un dezastru?..
- Dezvoltarea unei comunităţi are la bază trei piloni: dezvoltarea economică, dezvoltarea socială şi ocrotirea mediului. În centrul acestui triunghi se află omul. Iar calitatea omului este determinată de cultura lui. Majoritatea societăţii noastre, inclusiv politicienii, văd rolul culturii doar ca unul distractiv. În societatea contemporană, însă, acest rol este cu mult larg. Cred că e timpul să privim la cultură prin această prismă.
Timpul. Sorina Stefârţă
Posted in Art Management, Consulting, Cultural Financing, Cultural Policy, Moldova Culture, Projects | Tagged: Cultural Policy, Cultural Policy of Moldova, Finantarea culturii, Reabcinschi Veceaslav | Leave a Comment »
Criza scumpeşte arta
Posted by ghenador on July 24, 2010
Posted in ARS DOR, Art Management, Moldova art | Tagged: arta, muzeu, pictura | Leave a Comment »
3 Year Doctoral Scholarship 2011-2014 at the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies University of Warwick
Posted by ghenador on July 17, 2010
The Centre for Cultural Policy Studies at the University of Warwick will offer one doctoral scholarship, commencing in October 2011. The scholarship will be open to both home/EU and overseas candidates.
The value of the scholarship will be equivalent to the total course fee payable by a home/EU student or half the total course fee payable by an overseas student. The scholarship will be annually renewable for a three-year period, subject to the candidate’s satisfactory progress.
Priority will be given to candidates putting forward proposals for research in the general area of ‘implicit’ cultural policies, although proposals for research in any of the Centre’s fields of interest will be considered.
In brief, whilst ‘explicit’ cultural policy refers to policies explicitly labelled cultural, such as those pursued by ministries of culture around the world, ‘implicit’ cultural policy refers to those often more powerful forms of cultural action that are intended to shape cultures, but which are not expressly described as such.
In focusing on agencies that have thus aimed to modify the behaviour of populations, a study of ‘implicit’ cultural policies tends to foreground questions that might in other contexts be explored in terms of ideology or ‘governmentality’. For a further introduction to this, candidates are referred to a special issue of the International Journal of Cultural Policy that addresses this theme (vol 15, no 2, 2009).
In order to be considered for this scholarship, candidates will need to have received an unconditional offer for entry on to the CCPS MPhil/PhD programme by January 31st 2011.
Find details of the application procedure and further conditions of the scholarship
Posted in Art Management, Cultural Policy, Education | Tagged: Cultural Policy, Education | Leave a Comment »
Managementul din Cultura
Posted by ghenador on April 30, 2010
Art Management in R. Moldova
Posted in Art Management, Cultural Financing, Cultural Policy, Moldova Culture | Tagged: Art Management, Finantarea culturii, Moldova, Politici Culturale | Leave a Comment »
În afara procesului cultural european
Posted by ghenador on December 17, 2009
Sâmbătă, la Palatul Republicii din capitală, primul Congres al
oamenilor de cultură s-a desfăşurat cu sala arhiplină. Statutul artistului în societate, schimbarea mecanismelor de finanţare a culturii, prin instituirea unui fond naţional – au fost chestiuni de prim-plan ale congresului. După investiţiile oamenilor de afaceri în ultimii opt ani, prin presiuni şi şantaj în interesul ideologiei comuniste, ei sunt îndemnaţi să sprijine adevărata cultură.
R. Moldova continuă să se afle în afara procesului cultural european. Statul nu are politici culturale coerente, asta în condiţiile în care foste ţări socialiste şi ex-republici sovietice au devenit încă pe la începutul anilor `90 parte a agendei UE şi în domeniul culturii. Congresul a fost precedat de dezbateri naţionale la Cahul, Bălţi şi Chişinău. În ultimii opt ani, structurile de stat de profil au fost transformate în secţii de propagandă politico-ideologică ale partidului de guvernământ. Statul a impus un control absolut asupra finanţării produselor culturale. Participanţii la congres au acuzat fosta guvernare de alocări bugetare iraţionale, în proiecte anticulturale, precum „Caravela Culturii”.
Compozitorul Ghenadie Ciobanu, ministru al Culturii în perioada 1997-2001, susţine că n-a fost continuat primul raport naţional privind politicile culturale, prezentat Consiliului Europei în perioada sa. „Vrem să fim cei care vom sensibiliza toate organele puterii, pentru a face schimbările necesare. Ne referim la recomandările agendelor culturale ale forurilor politice naţionale, ale Parlamentului European şi UNESCO. Doar instituţiile competitive pot avea acces la proiecte culturale internaţionale”.
Ministrul Boris Focşa nu înţelege ce are de făcut
Pe de altă parte, ministrul Culturii, Boris Focşa, nu ştie dacă „e vorba doar de o criză financiară, de una spirituală sau de o perioadă de trecere. E nevoie de un studiu profund al situaţiei, ca să pot întreprinde nişte măsuri nu doar superficiale”.
Mai mulţi oameni de cultură sunt sceptici vizavi de speranţa că problemele din cultură ar putea fi rezolvate, în contextul „lipsei unui ministru competent”. Scriitorul Vladimir Beşleagă susţine că „Boris Focşa e total deplasat în totul ce discută. E un om întâmplător în funcţia de ministru al Culturii şi n-o să facă nimic”.
Mihai Ghimpu, preşedintele interimar al statului, a promis că nu „va lăsa oamenii de cultură şi artiştii în mizerie”. El a făcut un apel către businessmeni să sprijine această sferă şi să fie primii în formarea Fondului culturii. În context, Philipp Dietachmair, directorul Programe de vecinătate europeană al Fundaţiei Culturale din Amsterdam, a promis un sprijin consistent R. Moldova.
“Timpul”, 14 Decembrie, 2009
Angelina Olaru
Posted in Art Management, Cultural Policy, Moldova Culture | Tagged: Congresul Oamenilor de Cultura, Fondul Culturii | Leave a Comment »
