[ad_1]
Either you make repairs or you build a house, and everyone begins to show that otherwise it would have been better, the walls would have been less moldy, and there was even better outside the lake, and it would have been better to buy in Spain …
Not to mention teachers and dentists whose first question is, “Who did this to you here?”
When you spend your life in such a development-friendly environment, it is quite normal to hear similar statements from the Prime Minister: “The Council of Culture, of course, decides for itself, but somehow it seems that and it would be more appropriate to use it.” Journalists write it down and broadcast it, but no one asked for it to be specified, and where would have been more appropriate? Who is more important? And he could remember how he used those 43 million himself a few months ago, and all for construction, although everyone else was screaming where it could be better and more useful.
So it is normal for the “public” (such a comfortable undefined size) to spill, after learning that the Council of Culture has allocated 42,000 public euros to a project: to organize a debate on the monument and the square of Peter Cvirka. Outraged because … There are also thousands of reasons for this, but the most obvious can be grouped into: 1 – what to discuss here, when it was postponed long ago; 2 – for that money and should be postponed immediately; 3 – it is necessary to leave without any discussion, and give the artists a place for context and action; 4 – it is necessary to keep the historical memory intact and there are no languages here! 5 – a monument, however, to a prominent writer, not a contributor, so let us know our roots; 6 – there are no other problems in the state, so we start arguing about them?!? 7 – and generally go to hell, hawks!
The outraged president also issued his eighth individual opinion: “Public debates should be held, but I don’t know if they should be held at such cost.”
Here I would like to ask: what price do you imagine?
Here I would like to ask: what price do you imagine? It must be remembered, Mr. President, and that is its price, the one-year debt that you promised to cover by declaring a moratorium on various decisions and then initiating the discussions on those sites and monuments yourself. The forum convened by the President sat down one day and agreed, “that the issue of historical memory lacks a broader debate (…) that the debate on historical memory must take place before the action that caused the resonance and not after. The experts noted the superficiality of the public discourse, discussed the need for public forums.“The year has passed, and finally a new project promises to lead to a discussion – what happens?
Bad are two objects in the same line: Petras Cvirka and 42,000 euros. Without a doubt, the quantity and the name were those red cloths that waved to the readers of the media (and, I suppose, the media). Because for some reason nothing was outraged by the double or slightly lower amounts published in the same table of the Council of Culture for projects whose names do not say anything, such as “Architecture of the Neringa forest”, “GOViT-20 artistic space”. And the nomenclature that is too clear seems to make it possible to understand what will be there; more precisely, everyone understands according to their imagination (so does the Soviet classic: “Kisa, why do you have money, don’t you have a fantasy?”). That’s when the gusts and rage start, which could be simplified to “I’m talking about this in a cafe.” Of course it’s possible. But the question is, do you just want to chat or do you want to achieve something with such discussion? And how much would it make sense to have such a debate? How much would you be satisfied with? 1000 Eur? Is it 200 – coffee with mineral?
In fact, we, without reading the description of the idea, do not know what is provided there and how it will go, so we do not know how much is the appropriate amount for the measures. A priori there is no basis for prophesying that nothing good will come of it. There is constantly fostered skepticism, reinforced by loopholes in the eHealth system, the Registry Center, and much more. But the differences are also obvious: these are not thousands for culture, but tens of millions. Today the 6,300 million that will be eaten or given to the construction sector are already mentioned, and that is our DNA plan to build the future of the country!?!
This is the country’s gradation of value: we write thousands for culture, millions for healthcare, and the economy already has billions. And in public, controversy often arises over the smaller amounts because then the intelligent mind can still embrace.
And yet, what are those 42,000 euros in the field of culture? One performance of medium or low esteem in a state theater or two in an independent. Half or even a fifth of the performance is national. Much of the exhibition in a completely small private gallery at the next ArtVilnius fair. Six books, two albums. Part of a symphonic concert. And everything can be as good as bad. Art can remain in the memory and inspire action, awaken emotions or give impetus to a world-changing invention. And to annoy you so that you want to forget the evening dress as soon as possible. The experts who distribute the funds do not know the finals, the ideas are supported in several aspects, but even the geniuses with their teams have the right to be wrong. Therefore, there is basically one principle: faith (in oneself). Just as we spend our afternoons in the theater, at concerts, and also in the hope that the “product” is of high quality. But funding art and artists as if they were noble and not arguing the debate?
Different methods, but the goal is the same: raise disputes, provoke, control attitudes. For those who expect comfort and peace of current art, xanax should be sold at the box office. The annoying “Arco del Muelle” has rightfully won the National Prize simply for the obvious debate about the modernity of art, its place in space, and art as a beauty. The Cvirka Project caused waves without even starting.
And that’s great. If only we would look more soberly at that money for others. Because we have already experienced ready-to-use seats, and mainly on various anniversaries. The result is the work of Birutė Kapustinskaitė and Karolis Kaupinis – musical paintings “Radvila Darius, Vytautas” – which has just been shown in the new art district “Garden 2123”. It uses archival footage from the LRT program “Mirror”, where architects and journalists sitting in the studio classify the opinions of callers on what to do with Lukiškės square: a monument, a fountain or a park. Because Lenin has just been removed, and that is 1991 … That is the price and the result of 30 years of debate. With how many millions of squares, squares and monuments that have been rebuilt several times.
When I visited the Estonian documentary film festival in Pärnu at the end of that century, its organizer, director Mark Soosaar, installed the Freedom microphone in a square in the city center. The townspeople could express any opinion or complain about the care of the trees, the monument, the unpaved sidewalk or their profits. Discussions began. Soosaar wanted people to start talking.
Maybe that’s why we lag behind the Estonians. Because it was only after almost 30 years that we started organizing discussion festivals. Not free, Haidparkist, but staged, when the interlocutors are invited, selected, coordinated … The discussions are based on prefabricated answers formulated yesterday or a year ago, as if participating in an eternal electoral debate. As if I was forbidden to think. Therefore, in other places, without discussion, without listening to the other party, without arguments and examples, many things are quickly and quickly resolved (our Seimas had long entered the Guinness Book of Records according to the speed of laws adopted). The price – any square or public space “privatized” by monuments or laws – in any direction, patriotic or libertarian (here we can also write Škirpa and Noreika, mention the cemeteries where the monuments to the occupants are located, or Holocaust memorial sites, etc.). Democracy is becoming a battlefield for various dictatorships, with political weights, powers and allies competing, but without arguments and without openness to other points of view.
The debate is still largely based on the sole objective of achieving victory for one’s opinion. Raise your camp flag without regard for others. Not to arrange a square, a space, an area for everyone, but to hammer his stake, to immortalize, to mark the territory. Biological instincts save the species.
But does this mean that, based on this logic of experience, both in terms of the quality of the debate and in terms of “money wasted”, we should neither create councils nor allocate money? Is it safer, a dictatorial state that we do not fight against (where are the protests against the holes in the Records Center?)? We want a guaranteed outcome, but let’s see how much money states are spending on vaccines according to the news, and it’s not entirely clear if they will be developed. How many strong companies allow mistakes in the name of inventions and even encourage those who make mistakes? And how, without trying anything, would the state function democratically? That, as in that “Mirror” chronicle, people tried to grow up in the cold in the 90s by planting oaks for the J.Basanavičius park. Despite the skepticism.
In a cycle of discussions about the perpetuation of memory and the wars of the past, it is unlikely that everything will be resolved. But forming a habit requires repeated, consistent, and thoughtful actions. The public eye is already looking at this project. Therefore, the cycle may lead to the discovery of a mechanism to address what we have not learned to do in 30 years. Similar schemes may be presented from other countries, eventually promising to create a physical platform to express their views (maybe even in a discussion plaza?). That alone is an irrationally small amount of € 42,000 for society. Also low risk. Because the value of speaking and communicating is not directly measured. Listening to the other and being persuaded by him is a greater victory than voluntary decisions. Too many of them happened when we were standing silently under a tree.
[ad_2]
