Hate and/or Dialogue

Report from subcommittee
”Hate and/or Dialogue”

Engagement of artists
The voice of artists has to be
heard.
Having what to say.
Artist is not to serve: not to please
politicians, they have their own values.
Freedom to participate in political
decision-making.
Influence of art: Art means creating, inventing reality.
What can I do?
Ignorance is an action as well.
Being a part of is
important (so you have your own experience and can communicate).
There is a
difference between getting involved in politics or in a concrete policy. One
does not imply the other.
Identification with artists from other countries in
order to understand the environment in which they are operating.
Distinguish
artists from political powers (establishment).
Dialog is about
feelings.
Ignorance is more dangerous than hate.
Balance between hate and
dialogue: compromise.
Political correctness and public policy: The artist has
to name what is happening.
The artist cannot be force to serve (he can
accept) ???
Artists do not compromise ???
Misuse of
arts.
Responsibility for the message.
The position of the artist.


How?
Projects of common action.
Identify and name
problems: Escape from the political correctness to challenge a notion according
to which the artists have to provide a correct vocabulary.
Provide correct
vocabulary for understanding of culture, or otherwise serve the technocratic
concept of it.
Free movement of artists and people.
Possibilities to meet
other cultures.
Support of existing initiatives.
Common information
platform (network).


Forms of dialogue and with whom?
Dialogue between
individuals.
Authentic discussion. Distinguish between authentic and formal
discussion.
Dialogue = Self-discovery.
How to cope with the hate to and
from the Muslim world.
Messages are differently oriented, and not always
positive.
Creativity is not a value in itself, has to be balanced with
morality and responsibility.
Dialogue with politicians.
Bridging the gaps
and creating common projects.
The common language of arts.
Use of press
and media.
Education (meeting real people).
Building contexts.
Creating
networks.
Exchange of university programs.


Vision of our forum
Discussions before coming
bureaucratic technologic projects.
It should be the principal
direction.
Interdisciplinarity.
Avoid articulating resolutions.
Doing
via network: process is value.
Forum of exchange of ideas.
Use of the
possibilities of moving and meeting.
Preparing for discussions for next
meeting (we want to be active).
Think global (eurocentrism).


Proposition for a project: Cultural anthropology in the educational system
(there is a lot of expertise in the group, it is possible to make
a group
which can contribute with a series of publications that could be used in the
education).


Propositions for St Petersburg meeting:
• Rethinking the
framework of art (and culture).
• Does European culture exist?
• New rise
of technocracy in European politics and culture.
• Power of culture and
culture of power.
• Nationalism and supranationalism in culture and
arts.
• Interrelations of artistic and social systems.
• Principle of
subsidiarity in culture and politics.
• The role of Russian “intelligentsia”
in cutting the window to Europe.
• Artists and young generation. Relations of
big artists with children in education.
• Lack of institutions,
infrastructures, for contemporary art.
• Lack of system of contemporary
art.
• Concept of Europe in Eastern and Central Europe: Humanities and
Art.
• How to make culture profitable.
• Humanistic values.

Leave a Reply