The management program for culture – the inertia from socialism continues

This text is an analysis of the government's program in the field of culture for the period 2017-2021, published on 02.08.2017 on the website of the Council of Ministers here.

The review of the 14 goals set and the 63 measures selected by the government for the implementation of the priority called "Development of the arts, cultural and creative industries, cultural heritage and cultural tourism" shows the serious inertia from the socialist period in which we still find ourselves.

In short, the program outlined could be transferred without any effort to 1979 and implemented by the Committee for Culture of the People's Republic of Bulgaria. The wishful talk of improving the conditions for this, or improving the rules for that, has been going on since the existence of the Ministry of Culture (for about 70 years now), but real improvements still do not happen. Culture in Bulgaria exists despite the state, and we usually find our best artists abroad. For the Bulgarian audience, only low-quality, often imported, production remains.

The program lacks any specifics.

In fact, the program itself and the measures described are so general and lacking in specificity that they can easily be applied to any type of policy. Literally over half of the measures talk about “updating” a program, “improving” the conditions for some policy, or “improving” the given system. In practice, almost the entire program tells us that the government will do the same in the cultural sphere, which has been the rule until now. There is no talk of changing direction, of searching for new ideas and new solutions.

However, the direction should be completely different. It is obvious that the policy in the field of culture is not adequate. From the point of view of the cultural institutes themselves, the situation is bad, because they have no funding, their base is outdated, their work is difficult; from the point of view of the audience, cultural institutes are uninteresting, boring and they do not visit them. To solve this problem, the proposed government solutions are once again limited to “improving conditions” and this utopian, dreamy search for the “well-written law”.

Unfortunately, no one yet dares to decentralize - to give freedom and power to cultural institutes, which can be more freely close to the people, close to the searches of their small local audience. Then it will be seen which organizations really perform some useful activity for the country's culture, and which exist pro forma, simply to rent out their premises for evening gatherings to organizations that have nothing to do with culture. Because another truth no one wants to say - that the number of cultural institutions that are financed by the state is huge, compared to the activity they do. No one dares to close cultural institutes, because this is an unpopular and unpopulist policy.

The focus of policy in the sector should be on the individual as creator and audience

A large part of the program is related to the Bulgarian presidency of the Council of the European Union. Some of the important measures of the Bulgarian government related to the sphere of culture are the following: "Consolidation of the positive image of Bulgaria abroad by popularizing the achievements of national arts and culture and expanding the range of products and services offered" or "Consolidation of the role of Bulgarian culture as an important diplomatic factor in the bilateral and multilateral relations of the Republic of Bulgaria."

Against this background, the main problem in the entire program emerges. The entire government strategy is directed “top-down”. At no point is there any talk of individual personalities– either as artists or as an audience. Nowhere is there any talk of policies from the community to the country, “bottom-up”, more popularly known in English terminology – bottom-up projects. It turns out that the government knows, the government can and will say what and how will be implemented in the field of culture. The rest of the chain down are simple executors who must carry out the orders.

Funding issues are also a cause for concern. One of the most pressing problems in Bulgaria – the ridiculous restoration of cultural values – seems to be supported by the government, and even funding for such activities will increase. Competitive principles and equality in seeking state funds are discussed in three places – for cultural institutes in general; for expanding access to culture; and specifically for performing arts organizations. “Market” and “competition” continue to be forbidden words after the failed “ticket” reform – which actually had nothing to do with the market with the blind, uncritical co-financing of every ticket purchased.

Structural reform is needed, not wasting more and more money

However, transparent competitions in the field of cultural heritage are an urgent policy - since at the moment practically all values are restored by a monopolist architect, without the other experts with a different view of cultural heritage having a chance to offer an alternative. There is no thinking in this direction. More and more money will be given so that new and new fake fortresses can be built. The "audience" is satisfied, but the results are uniform objects and the destruction of cultural heritage.

For example, only two measures are allocated to cinema, equally unrelated to the real situation and problems in the sector. The sweet populist talk of “funds will be allocated” caresses every ear, but funds are being allocated at the moment, while the problems are completely elsewhere. The monopoly – or rather the oligopoly of several groups of “artists” leads to the result that films by the same groups are constantly financed with large funds. Often these are films that we have never heard of, never seen and cannot even order. The other measure in the field of cinema is “creating conditions for alternative sources of financing”. Again, a good-sounding measure, which, however, exists even without paying government officials to take care of it.

Many of the quality films in Bulgaria in recent years have been made without state support – “Face Down” by Kamen Kalev, “Nobody” by Andrey Andonov, “Lesson” by Petar Valchanov and Kristina Grozeva, and “Deacon Levski” by Maksim Genchev. Different films both in terms of type of cinema – commercial or artistic, – and in terms of costs, idea and results. On the other hand, the productions supported by the National Film Center do not stand out as some exclusively non-commercial cinema – among the films supported in one way or another are exclusively commercial films, such as “Gasoline” or “Voevoda”.

Excessive centralization remains a major and yet unaddressed problem

Here again – as in the entire management program – the problem is centralization and the total approach. There is a complete lack of ideas for breaking up the funding to be given to more and smaller organizations or artists in the field of cinema; there is a lack of ideas for financing – or for example, participating as a market player – the distribution of films abroad. Suffice it to say that “the money is increasing” to make everyone happy. Everyone, except for young and working artists.

The general conclusion is that the populist rhetoric of "we will give more to culture" continues in full force. "We will take care of culture and make some good rules" is the rhetoric that all managers in the sphere of ruined Bulgarian culture in the last 70 years can identify with.

The policies that should actually be talked about, but are completely missing, are those aimed at the freedom of choice of individual personalities and audiences – but also at their education. Nowhere in the program is the audience seen as a group of people who can receive some kind of literacy, facilitating access to culture or education in a given field. They are an amorphous mass that can attend an event in larger or smaller crowds. There are no policies towards individual artists, towards small independent organizations that need support, towards clearing the many burdens that hang on the culture budget, there is no policy for an equal start and equal conditions.

The ongoing thinking is that if we unconditionally increase the money, the problems will be solved – it is also supported by the current management program, but it is harmful and must be exposed. There is still no politician who truly puts on the table as a value free competition, a level playing field, transparency, competition and the long-term education of the audience, who can choose quality productions for themselves.

Източник на изображенията: Google

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!