[ad_1]
CULTURE DEBATE. Many of us practitioners of culture are grateful that Jonas gardell he uses his position to speak for the entire industry at this difficult time. You can make others listen to you because you are well known to a large part of the population. Who cares what a “common” culture worker thinks to the “unknown” public?
With great dismay I therefore read Amanda Sokolnickis Character assassination and voluptuous mockery (DN, 9/25) of the plot that Gardell made in Expressen (9/24) after it became clear that the government will not change the law to allow a new start to cultural life.
I understand that it must be tempting to go after one of the great writers and cultural personalities of our time, in his chronicle condescendingly reduced to “comedian.” Jonas Gardell is treated like a prankster who should at least know his place in the kennel. She has missed the point. I feel something more and more unpleasant in the chronicle, that is, the cultural contempt and a total disinterest in knowing what the problem of cultural life really is at this moment, about what Gardell actually writes.
The only time the government has acted against the Public Health Agency is on this very issue.
It must first be said here that neither I nor anyone I know in the cultural world take the pandemic lightly. Covid-19 is a terrible disease that has caused a lot of suffering and caused too many deaths. But this should not be confused with the question of whether it is possible to begin to reopen cultural life responsibly. As long as there are no stricter restrictions on the rest of society, there is no reason to impose a ban on culture, as Gardell pointed out. It is hypocrisy. The only time the government has acted against the Public Health Agency is on this very issue.
However, Sokolnicki sees the whole thing only as a story of self-pity on Gardell’s part. For those of us serious in the industry (this includes Jonas Gardell as well), this is a serious problem. It is about managing the cultural capital of the country, which is found above all in the practitioners, on, behind and around the stages. For them, it is not just a question of money or financial compensation, although of course it is also important.
It’s also about maintaining carefully acquired skill, cutting-edge competence, which sadly is lost surprisingly quickly if you are not allowed to practice your profession. In most cases, these are decades of hard work that can be lost, not infrequently from a young age and with great sacrifices. Anyone who has not practiced any form of culture probably cannot really understand how vulnerable it is. But it is also this vulnerability that allows magical moments to appear in a concert or performance. Are we willing to sacrifice this?
An elite athlete or professional musician who is not allowed to go on quickly loses his shape …
To show how special cultural competence is, we can take a concrete example: a musician who plays in a professional orchestra could, after retraining, work in many other professions. On the other hand, hardly anyone from another profession, not even after several years of retraining, could get a job as a musician in a professional orchestra, if they have not yet trained as a professional musician earlier in life. The competition is incredibly fierce, with applicants from around the world currently auditioning for every available musician position.
A comparison can also be made with elite sports. Elite athletes could work in other professions, but rarely the other way around. An elite athlete or professional musician who is not allowed to move on quickly loses her form and has a hard time getting back on top again. I believe that the special capital that exists to be managed in the cultural world – the experience and skill of the practitioners – can actually be lost. It’s not just about snapping your fingers in a year, after an industry shutdown, and suddenly there’s a cultural life in tip-top shape, as if nothing happened. That is why we must get going as soon as possible, responsibly.
I understand very well that we must not re-enter a crisis situation. The important question here is whether it is really risky with particular cultural events. I ask, like Jonas Gardell, for a serious and constructive discussion about the difficult situation in cultural life at the moment and for a plan of action. Coming Soon. Yes, why isn’t it already done? Let’s listen to the Public Health Agency, who thinks the limit can be changed from 50 to 500 at the hearing, and let’s start there with immediate effect, and then carefully, let’s move further. Of course, we need to constantly monitor where the pandemic is heading and, if necessary, adjust plans accordingly, so that nothing bad happens.
Why would such a controlled environment be more dangerous than all the uncontrolled environments in which we move every day?
My own reflection is that it is probably easier to ensure that people keep a safe distance in a theater or concert hall compared to a shopping mall, bus, plaza or restaurant. It is possible to control the audience flow at the entrance and exit and ensure that the numbered seats are distributed sensibly. The public is also motivated to be careful because everyone takes the pandemic seriously and the type of people who attend seated cultural events in theaters and concert halls are generally polite. Why would such a controlled environment be more dangerous than all the uncontrolled environments in which we move on a daily basis?
In a culture-oriented country like Germany, during the pandemic, the issue has been approached in a methodical and scientific way, because it understands the deep meaning of culture for man and society. We should seriously study this process aimed at a functional cultural life in Germany. We can learn a lot from your research, we don’t have to invent the wheel ourselves.
This is already being done in the cultural nation of Germany.
An article on the Bayerische Rundfunk (equivalent to SR / SVT) website on September 24 speaks of something interesting: since September 1 this year, a pilot project has allowed Germany’s largest opera house (Bayerische Staatsoper in Munich) has an audience of up to 500 people. It went very well. So far there are no cases of covid-19, neither among the performers nor among the public, after 21 performances. The Munich Philharmonic has also given concerts with 500 spectators in September, and there has also been no case of Corona. Now they are already discussing removing the upper limit of 500 and letting different opera houses and concerts decide for themselves what works for them, in a responsible way.
This is exactly what cultural life in Sweden wants. This is what Jonas Gardell is talking about. This is already being done in the cultural nation of Germany. Amanda Sokolnicki should know this before she ridicules Jonas Gardell and thus pokes fun at all of Swedish cultural life.
By B. Tommy Andersson
B. Tommy Andersson is a conductor, composer, professor at the Royal Academy of Music, and a member of the Royal Academy of Music.
Listen to “Two Men on a Podcast”
https://embed.radioplay.io?id=73236&country_iso=se
An Expressen Kultur search podcast on masculinity, love and loneliness. Featuring two of the cultural site’s main names: radio star Eric Schüldt and Daniel Sjölin, author and TV profile. Self-help for intellectuals.
