At the europe.art exhibition, which opened at the Sofia City Gallery in April, a light display invites the visitor to undergo “vision diagnostics”. The work by Samuil Stoyanov entitled “How do you see Bulgaria?” minimises and maximises the geographical outline of Bulgaria, turns it at various angles, offers a number of viewpoints, determines the dioptre and the possible effects/defects of your vision.
The text below focuses on a similar context and content and is based on several interviews with people actively engaged in the field of culture in Bulgaria. Through their own position and experience, they discuss cultural events and answer questions related to the independent artistic scene, institutions, and last but not least – the needs, the gaps and perspectives that we face after the official political accession of our country to the European Union in January 2007.
Those invited to share their personal experience and evaluation of the cultural-political changes that Bulgaria has been experiencing post-1989 are:
It is not surprising that one of the main problems of the cultural-political situation in Bulgaria happens to be the interaction between the state and the third sector, namely the cultural sector.
After the fall of Communism in 1989, the state faced the need to get rid of its totalitarian past without distancing itself from activities in the cultural sector. The challenge was for an effective and efficient process of decentralisation to take place and for the conditions for a well-structured and well-functioning cultural sector to be created. These are also the recommendations contained in an early and already obsolete report on the cultural-political situation in Bulgaria prepared by Council of Europe experts.
A current evaluation of what happened in the so-called “transition period” – between 1989 and EU accession – necessarily includes an analysis of the activities in the area mentioned above. In the beginning of the transition period, this was seen as leading to democratisation – a term that may sound a bit unfashionable today.
It is clear that much has been done in terms of developing policies and attitudes in the cultural sector and more precisely in relation to the establishing of a well-functioning third sector. Recently we have seen the creation of the Bulgarian Association of Cultural Managers and the joint initiative of a number of civil organisations – the NGO Family for Art and Culture. An expert committee is working on the transparency and effectiveness of cultural policies under a project funded by the Trust for Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe.
A significant change that has been occurring recently in the civil and NGO sector, according to cultural economist Biliana Tomova, is that these organisations are now being founded on a national level at the expense of foreign organisations, such as Pro-Helvetia, which are discontinuing their operations in Bulgaria.
As well as the above, there is a trend towards unification in the sector, which stems not only from common interest but also from the desire for joint action. An example is the participation of experts, representing the NGO Family, in the debate for preparing the guidelines for the Culture Municipal Fund.
As far as I can trace the history and logic of this development, I can say that what is happening is not just the growth of cultural organisations as institutions, but also a gradual change in the focus of general discussions. One of the early projects, such as the Technological Park Culture – which aimed at the consolidation of the third sector and resulted in the creation, albeit short-lived, of the National Civil Forum for Culture – still placed a strong emphasis on the need for joint ownership of the interests of all the participants solely within the sector.
Today, the debate has a different focus. It is based on much more conscious rights and responsibilities, which aim to achieve specific cultural-political goals. This is why, according to Biliana Tomova, efforts should be directed towards the creation of sustainable partnerships – not only between organisations from the sector, but between business and the state. These conscious rights and responsibilities need to take the form of functional lobbying for improved opportunities for the development of the cultural sector.
The prospect of such a position will mean cooperation in the development of a cultural strategy, which will regulate and facilitate the work of the different organisations and artists engaged in this area. As such a strategy does not yet exist, the problem that Bulgaria faces is fragmented work, where practices and results do not have enough sustainability. We face problems such as limited funding for the sector, both in terms of the level of generic funds for culture released by the state, as well as the improvement of their management.
The problem of lack of transparency still exists in relation to the political decisions made by the state in the management of the sector. This is the place to mention some of the hot topics for Bulgaria, such as the creation of municipal funds for culture, the baseline study for the setting up of a lottery or the introduction of the One Percent Law, the appearance of the Cultural Policy blog and the initiation of a public debate between experts and state representatives.
The lack of context, namely a complete and politically well-regulated context, is the main problem that we need to tackle today. The fact that there is still no formulated strategy for culture places the Bulgarian artist in a “lonely” position. According to artist Pravdoliub Ivanov, we face a situation where the development of practices is running ahead of the development of the context: “I get the feeling that the context and the practices are going in opposite directions or, that the context remains unchanged unlike the practices and the achievements of individual artists and NGOs in the field of the arts.”
This lack of context is felt even more acutely today, as Bulgaria is being integrated with Europe on the formal political level and on the cultural-political level as well. In this respect, again, the sector and the state are arguing about the need to take responsibility. On the one hand, Deiana Danailova, who is the Director for International Cultural Policy at the International Cultural Policy Directorate, Ministry of Culture, says: “The cultural operators face the challenge of the complex procedures related to the implementation of the financial instruments of the EU, which, we hope, will be solved with adequate methodological support on the part of all responsible institutions.” On the other hand, the accent that Biliana Tomova places on the same issue emphasises the institutions’ responsibility, and more specifically the state’s responsibility to provide information about the available funds.
Another responsibility for the state will be the creation of mechanisms for active support. As an example, Biliana Tomova talks about the state support available a few years ago to Hungarian organisations that had submitted successful project bids under the Culture programme but were not able to provide the required percentage of the funding themselves.
In this case, of course, there is much more than “methodological support”. In this line of thought, the lobbying campaigns, the civil forums and the public debate should be aiming to achieve better synchronicity between the state and the third sector – a synchronicity that is based on mutual understanding and adequate separation of duties, aiming to achieve specific results belonging to a common strategy. This, however, requires the political awareness of the role of culture as an important feature in presenting the “face” and image of Bulgaria.
Equally relevant in this regard would be themes such as the foundation of a museum of contemporary art in Bulgaria, the support for Bulgarian galleries to take part in international art fairs, the mature and purposeful work towards the promotion of contemporary Bulgarian cultural products on behalf of our cultural institutes abroad, etc.
All this presupposes the political understanding that culture creates a singularity and an image that we need in order to be differentiated on the basis of our cultural specificity and in order to create a comfortable political image for ourselves – one that would ensure that we have our place at the common European table for negotiation and cooperation.
Bulgaria is nowadays in the awkward political situation where it is both a member of the EU and not yet a fully integrated part of the community. It is just initiating the process of integrating with common European values, models, criteria and policies, which go together with the creation of a relevant socio-economic environment.So, on the one hand, its position is not yet a fair one, especially if we compare economic possibilities of participation in creation and consumption of cultural production. For example, “ the airfare from Sofia to Vienna is much more expensive than the fares covering the same distance from Vienna to cities in the West”. (Georgi Tenev). On the other hand, however, the operating field for cultural productivity, as well as the potential opportunities for individual participation in its production, are extremely wide, because a lot of formal and not so formal constraints do not exist any more.
The focus has been shifted. “ Talking about the profile of the art manager in Bulgaria, I would fully place him or her in Europe, because its characteristic features are neither local, nor regional”, says Biliana Tomova, when sharing her experience from her latest research. This is a small, but not insignificant shift, which confirms the new challenges that we are facing.
The focus goes along with the title, and the title – with aneed for quality. “The challenges that the independent art scene is facing here are contained in the act of Europe’s opening for us and the danger of some of the prejudices and clichés that we had dropped becoming justified.” (Pravdoliub Ivanov)
From this point of view, a point emphasised by all those we interviewed, is the need for lobbying to ensure the political understanding of the role of culture as crucial for sustainable development. This means that the politics of cultural diplomacy need to be incorporated in the common strategy for the financing and development of culture. Until now, a major role in supporting the status of the cultural product in Bulgaria has been played by foreign cultural institutes such as the Goethe-Institut, the French Institute and the British Council. It is not surprising that their role is singled out by Stefan Kitanov, whose sphere of activity is directly influenced by international presence, partnerships and prestige, who stresses that the Sofia International Film Fest is first and foremost a “business card of the state”: “ The state institutions remain in debt to the event”, says Kitanov.
It cannot be denied that the state is moving forward in this area. Bulgaria’s participation in the Venice Biennale is a good example. The problem is that this is not common practice yet. In Georgi Tenev’s words: “ Integration implies movement, both in social practices, and in the accessibility of artistic practices for all.” Of course, we could rightly add here – sustainability also matters.
It is obvious that Bulgaria is no longer at the stage of “pioneering” work, as Stefan Kitanov described the early 1990s. It is also obvious that borrowing foreign models and practices, no matter how important they were and still are for the transition period, is now less necessary in comparison with the need to develop a specific national model for the funding and management of culture: a model that will allow for the best conditions for the creation of cultural products and their participation in the common market, not only of culture and art but also of values, capital, political influence, and, of course, the related financial investment –connected with status.
In this process, the dramatis personae in the cultural sector – that is, artists and public organisations – should have an ever expanding and diverse range of support available from the state.
At the end of this text, as well as at the beginning, I feel obliged to highlight the need for the initiation of a process of public debate and the formulation of a strategy for the development of culture, which will allow the establishment of sustainable practices and partnerships between the various cultural agents. The process could start by asking the question that, I believe, gives at least the option of choice, and every choice is also an opportunity for freedom of decision – “ How do you see Bulgaria?” or even “ How do you prefer to see Bulgaria?”
LabforCulture is a partner initiative of the European Cultural Foundation. LabforCulture is grateful for the support provided by its funders.
