• De Raad voor Cultuur positief over de aanvraag van DutchCulture

    Museum of Tomorrow, Rio de Janeiro

    Photo: Tomaz Silva, Agência Brasil

    De Raad voor Cultuur positief over de aanvraag van DutchCulture

    4 June 2020
    Op 4 juni maakte de Raad voor Cultuur haar adviezen voor de periode 21-24 bekend.

    Op 4 juni maakte de Raad voor Cultuur haar adviezen voor de Culturele basisinfrastructuur (BIS) 2021-2024 bekend. DutchCulture heeft een subsidieverzoek ingediend om de komende vier jaar wederom de functie van bovensectorale ondersteunende instelling voor het Internationaal Cultuurbeleid te vervullen.

    De Raad voor Cultuur is positief over de aanvraag van DutchCulture, maar vindt op basis van de beoordeling van het activiteitenplan dat we een aantal punten verder moeten toelichten en uitwerken. We zijn verheugd dat de raad een positief advies heeft afgegeven en gaan aan de slag voor een volmondig ja. We hopen dat de Minister dat advies vervolgens overneemt.

    In de ogen van de raad ligt de kracht van DutchCulture bij haar overzicht over de culturele sector en de vele ingangen waarover zij beschikt via haar uitstekende netwerk
    Uit het advies over DutchCulture van de Raad voor Cultuur

    We kijken ernaar uit om ons vanaf 2021 nog sterker in te zetten om culturele en creatieve professionals een stap verder te brengen in hun internationale ambities. We doen dit vanuit een integrale visie, met het Nederlands Internationaal Cultuurbeleid, het nationaal cultuurbeleid en de Europese programma’s als uitgangspunt. We willen de betrokkenheid van makers en instellingen vergroten, zodat wij beter kunnen inspelen op de behoeften en vragen. Ook blijven we de komende jaren investeren in de relaties met de Nederlandse diplomatieke posten en richten we ons sterker dan voorheen op steden en regio’s. Belangrijke thema’s zijn Europa en de Europese Unie en Fair International Cultural Cooperation (inclusieve en duurzame samenwerking). DutchCulture biedt praktische informatie, advies en toegang tot netwerk, en maakt zich sterk voor reflectie & debat en onderzoek & ontwikkeling. De huidige crisis laat de internationale verbondenheid zien en maakt duidelijk hoe belangrijk uitwisseling en samenwerking is. Kunst en cultuur heeft in deze tijd wederom haar verbeeldings- en verbindingskracht bewezen.

    Meer dan ooit geloven wij in een wereld waarin internationale culturele samenwerking en uitwisseling de samenleving verrijken.

    Bent u geïnteresseerd in het gehele subsidieverzoek? U kunt het lezen via deze link.

    Het advies van de Raad voor Cultuur is hier te lezen.

  • Sonic Acts and the Murmansk Prospekt project: building bridges with countries bordering the EU

    View on the harbour of Murmansk, Russia.

    Photo: Oleg Khadartsev

    Sonic Acts and the Murmansk Prospekt project: building bridges with countries bordering the EU

    3 June 2020
    An interview with director Lucas van der Velden on the project and the Creative Twinning subsidy aiming to stimulate creative collaborations nearby territories.

    In times of tension and crises, society has often looked to the arts for ways to find a common ground with people we might politically or culturally be at odds with. Creative collaboration defies borders: building bridges and forging friendships with our neighbours. This is the premise of Creative Twinning, a Dutch grant programme which supports collaborative cultural projects between the Netherlands and countries bordering the EU*. Sonic Acts, an organisation for the research, development and production of works at the intersection of art, science and theory, is one of the participants. We spoke with its director, Lucas van der Velden.

    How did you become involved with the Creative Twinning programme?

    “We’ve actually been working with our Russian partners Zhanna Guzenko and Oleg Khadartsev from Fridaymilk since 2013. Fridaymilk is a cultural organisation based in Murmansk. It’s an independent organisation run by a team of curators, artists and cultural managers.

    One of the requirements of the Creative Twinning grant was a focus on long-term developments in urban environments, with topics that include sustainability and inclusivity. In previous collaborations our focus was not primarily the city, but we did produce several projects investigating the urban landscape, such as sound walks and site specific installations. For Murmansk Prospekt we focussed on Murmansk from a social perspective. Its population is declining, young people are moving away as they see no future for themselves in Murmansk. Life in the Far North is tough – there are months of darkness, the climate is harsh and it’s an industrial town. But more important, there is a shared feeling by the young generation that Murmansk has lost its identity, and its inhabitants therefore have lost a feeling of belonging to the city. So the dilemma the youth is facing is whether its better to leave or live.”

    Photo: Antonina Gorbacheva
    Your project is called Murmansk Prospekt. What does it entail?

    "By commissioning artists to research the city and the surrounding area, we try investigate Murmansk through a different set of lenses. Using artistic and speculative research we try to reveal the hidden histories and lost identities of the city – to re-imagine and redefine the city – and offer citizens new ways to connect to the city. 

    So far, there are four projects within Murmans Prospekt that all had the city as a study object: two with Russian artists and two with Dutch artists collaborating with local artists. Gleb Glonti, a Russian sound artist, for instance made a sonic map of Murmansk, Just Take Time to Listen. It has a dominant feature of industrial noise in coexistence with natural sounds of the North. And Polina Medvedeva, a Dutch-Russian filmmaker, has been working with a group of local young creatives on documenting the invisible and inaccessible side of the city. This includes interviewing friends and relatives, to extend the range of information flow on a personal level and think about what the city is. But Murmansk Prospekt is a work in progress, so there's still more to come." 

    These lasting collaborations become bridges between nodes – the importance of which cannot be overstated
    Why did you choose to work there?

    "We got interested in the Barents Region in 2012  on the border between Russia and Norway – because of its geography and history, and the industrial and ecological situation resonated with our thematic interest in topics surrounding the antropocene, climate change and the industrialisation of natural resources. The area has a complicated history. The Sámi population, the only indigenous people, has rapidly decreased in the twentieth century due to violent repression in Russia as well as in the neighbouring countries of Sweden, Finland and Norway. The majority of the inhabitants have no historical roots in the region, but came from all over the Soviet-Union.

    When natural resources were discovered, people were brought in to work in the mines and processing plants, and there was an influx of immigrants from all over. It is still a heavily industrialised area that provides metals, oils and natural gas. There was a big NATO base on the Norwegian side. And during the Cold War, this was the only place in Europe where a NATO country bordered directly on Russia, so the area is also occupied by large military bases. Murmansk also harbours the Northern fleet including a large nuclear fleet, which means a large part of its harbour is a restricted zone. It's a huge city, but it was only founded a century ago. And it is isolated and far removed from everything, so it has also been neglected in many ways."

    Photo: Eduard Mikryukov
    It doesn’t sound like a cultural hotspot.

    "Well, maybe not in the traditional sense. But for us the primary reason to collaborate with Fridaymilk and to operate in the Barents region is that we are interested in rethinking art, and we are interested in new ways of collaborating and organising art, as opposed to working within the traditional and established cultural infrastructure we have for instance in the Netherlands. Since we started working there it has proven to be a very inspiring environment for the artists we have worked with and the continuing exchange has also proven to be very fruitful."

    Collaborations between countries with such different systems pose constant challenges. It reminds us of the fact that the way we do things in the west is not a given
    What are some of the obstacles and challenges you face?

    "On a political level the European-Russian relationship has been a strained one in recent years, which is precisely why these collaborations are such a good idea. It shows that the political reality is not the only one that counts. Of course there are many obstacles and challenges. Collaborations between countries with such different systems pose constant challenges. What is a given in the Netherlands might be impossible in Russia and the other way around. It reminds us of the fact that the way we do things in the west is not a given.

    So it's important for us to listen to our partner, because we don't know the local rules and the possible consequences. Another big difference is of course the lack of funding for cultural activities in Murmansk. So it's wonderful to be able to develop projects there through programmes like the Creative Twinning grant. Without it, these types of projects would be impossible. Through these types of funding programmes, we're able to generate an enormous amount of access. To capital, to people, to technologies... And this has proven results."

    View on Murmansk, Russia.
    Can you share with us some of the results so far?

    "Well, one of the great outcomes is exchange. Fridaymilk now comes to Amsterdam every year, and we extend our network to them through our Sonic Acts festival. This has supported them to create their own festival, Inversia. But it has also enabled a lot of artists and makers to go to Murmansk and develop and show work there, give workshops and create collaborative works. And most of these projects aren't just one-off residencies or presentations. Usually they have a lot more impact and people continue to return. These lasting collaborations become bridges between makers, organisations and communities – the importance of which cannot be overstated.

    Of course you can never predict what the outcome of a single exchange will be, but when we look back on history it is obvious how important cultural exchange has always been in the past. It might not benefit society in short term, because when you set out to explore something, it may or may not result in something useful. But shen you invest in something properly, you know that eventually it will pay off. Collaboration is about bringing people together. It's the best investment there is.

    The only thing I would wish for, is that we could focus more on the long term. The subsidy for the Creative Twinning programme ends this year, and it is still unclear if, and in what form it will continue – which is unfortunate. We feel it's important to continue our collaboration, so we will look for ways to carry on, one way or another. But it would be very helpful if there would be a more structural support in place. Because creating real impact takes time."

    *In 2018, the Netherlands Enterprise Agency selected five projects to receive a grant through the Creative Twinning programme. Creative Twinning is a subsidy scheme offered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to support cultural activities in countries bordering the EU. These activities strengthen mutual links, increase trust and improve communication between the Netherlands and the countries involved. 

    Sonic Acts Foundation
  • 公开通话:公平的国际文化合作——语言

    Sculpture 'Dismemberment' by Anish Kapoor

    Photo: Anish Kapoor. Image via WikiMediaCommons.


    4 June 2020

    公平的国际文化合作是指一系列会议,DutchCulture 和国际合作伙伴将借此探讨制定来自于国际社会并被国际社会接受的行为准则的可能性。每一次会议都涵盖了一个特定主题:2018 年的资助2019 年的气候变化以及今年 9 月 18 日即将在欧洲文化论坛期间在阿姆斯特丹讨论的语言。有关这一系列会议的背景和目标的更多信息,请参见下文。
    1. 选定的沟通语言通常对一方有利而对另一方不利。
    2. 所使用的词汇决定了消息的价值。
    3. 所使用的词语的意义因个人的文化背景不同而有所不同。


    公平的国际文化合作旨在促进国际文化合作,认识到不同的工作方式和不平等的制度,同时促进跨越文化差异的相互尊重。在 2020 年 9 月举行的本届会议上,我们将问自己:我们要如何安排国际文化合作,使其在语言方面体现公平? 我们诚邀您积极参加将以小组形式举行的两场工作会议。会议将讨论以下两个问题:

    1.    道德 关于在公平的国际文化合作中使用语言,我们有哪些共同的道德原则? 即,如何使用语言来促进平等的国际文化合作?在非歧视的语言背景下,指导最佳实践的道德原则是什么?
    2.    实践 您的组织中、您的资助体系,或是在面对合作伙伴或受众时,在语言使用方面安排更公平的国际文化合作所面临的机遇和挑战是什么? 即,我们可以开发哪些实用的工具或方法来实现关于语言公平的共同道德原则? 我们可以参考的最好的和“失败的”案例是什么?


    如需申请参加本次“公平的国际文化合作——语言”会议,请填写申请表。与会者的遴选将由外部委员会进行。入选名单将于 8 月 1 日前公布。申请截止日期为 7 月 2 日。



    探索 2020 年主题:语言



    首先,我们有选定的沟通语言 [voertaal],在国际合作中,它往往是一种通用语,或者是一种从殖民时期继承下来的共同语言。由于语言在构成一个人的存在、文化和艺术身份方面具有深远的影响,所以选择英语或法语这样的通用语往往是很快就自动做出的决定,这样的决定可能会限制艺术表达的自由和语言的多样性,强化殖民时代遗留的怨气。虽然忽视次要语言文化和人们不太熟悉的方言(如非裔美国人的方言英语)可能很常见,但公平的跨文化合作要求人们必须克服围绕语言使用的固有偏见。这种对次要语言文化的意识形态上的忽视,以及对未被承认的方言(如非裔美国人的方言英语)的忽视,在公平的跨文化合作的斗争中,这是需要克服的最具决定性、也非常难以驾驭的挑战之一。


    语言的所有这些方面都表现在三个层面上:(1) 在艺术家之间的创作和专业过程中;(2) 在创作者和公众的沟通中(即艺术作品本身);(3) 在在创作者及其资助者或委托人之间。在每一种情况下,都需要对语言的三个方面做出决定。
























  • دعوة مفتوحة: التعاون الثقافي الدولي العادل؛ اللغة

    Sculpture 'Dismemberment' by Anish Kapoor

    Photo: Anish Kapoor. Image via WikiMediaCommons.

    دعوة مفتوحة: التعاون الثقافي الدولي العادل؛ اللغة

    4 June 2020
    खुला आह्वान

    التعاون الثقافي الدولي العادل هو سلسلة تجمعات من خلالها تقوم منظمة DutchCulture والشركاء الدوليون باستكشاف إمكانية التوصل إلى مدونة قواعد سلوك تكون متنوعة المصادر ومقبولةً على المستوى الدولي. يتناول كل تجمع فكرةً محددةً: التمويل في 2018، وتغير المناخ في 2019، واللغة هذا العام، حيث يُعقد في 18 سبتمبر بمدينة أمستردام، خلال منتدى الثقافة الأوروبية. يرجى الاطلاع أدناه لمعرفة المزيد من المعلومات حول الخلفية الأساسية لهذه التجمعات وأهدافها.
    عند التعامل مع الخارج والتعاون الدولي، يقتحم الممارسون الثقافيون آفاقًا تتسم طبيعتها بالاختلافات الثقافية وعدم المساواة في القوى الهيكلية. وأحد أوجه عدم المساواة هذه ينشأ من استخدام اللغة. ويتجسد ذلك في ثلاث طرق:
    1.    لغة التواصل المختارة عادةّ يستفيد منها طرف على حساب آخر.
    2.    المفردات المستخدمة هي التي تحدد قيمة الرسالة.
    3.    معنى الكلمات المستخدمة يختلف تبعًا للخلفية الثقافية للفرد.
    إننا نوجه دعوةً على المستوى الدولي إلى المديرين الثقافيين والفنانين والمفكرين والعلماء والنقاد وصناع السياسة والممولين المهتمين بقضايا اللغة والجادون في الاستثمار في موضوع "التعاون الثقافي الدولي العادل" للاجتماع ومناقشة كيفية تنظيم تعاون دولي بطريقة تكون عادلة من حيث استخدام اللغة. اطلع أدناه لتستكشف المزيد عن فكرة اللغة.


    "التعاون الثقافي الدولي العادل" للاجتماع ومناقشة كيفية تنظيم تعاون دولي بطريقة تكون عادلة من حيث استخدام اللغة. اطلع أدناه لتستكشف المزيد عن فكرة اللغة.

    هداف التجمع

    الهدف من التعاون الثقافي الدولي العادل هو تعزيز التعاون الثقافي الدولي بأسلوب يعترف بطرائق العمل المختلفة وبالأنظمة غير المتساوية ويشجّع على الاحترام المتبادل بين الثقافات المختلفة. خلال هذه الجلسة في 2020، سنطرح على أنفسنا السؤال التالي: كيف لنا أن نقيم تعاونًا ثقافيًا دوليًا بأسلوب يكون عادلاً من حيث اللغة؟ إننا نطلب منكم المشاركة النشطة في جلستي العمل اللتين تُجريان في مجموعات. الجلسات ستتناول السؤالين التاليين:


    1. الجانب الأخلاقي
       ما المبادئ الأخلاقية المشتركة بيننا من حيث استخدام اللغة في التعاون الثقافي الدولي العادل؟ بمعنى، كيف تُستخدم اللغة في تعزيز التعاون الثقافي الدولي المنصف وما المبادئ الأخلاقية التي توجّه أفضل الممارسات في ما يتصل بالشروط اللغوية غير التمييزية؟


    1. الجانب العملي
       ما الفرص والتحديات التي أمام إقامة تعاون ثقافي دولي أكثر إنصافًا من حيث استخدام اللغة في مؤسستك أو في أنظمة التمويل الخاصة بك أو مع الشركاء أو الجماهير؟ بمعنى، ما الأدوات والوسائل العملية التي يمكننا تطويرها لتحقيق المبادئ الأخلاقية المشتركة المتعلقة بالإنصاف اللغوي؟ ما أفضل الحالات وما الحالات التي "أخفقت" التي يمكننا الإشارة إليها؟

    ستكون المناقشة مدعومةً بمتحدث رئيسي وقراءات إضافية حول التعاون الثقافي الدولي العادل - اللغة. وكما هو الحال في العام الماضي، سيتم إعداد تقرير حول نتائج هذه المناقشات وسيتم عرضه واستخدامه في إجراء المزيد من النقاشات حول الممارسات العادلة في التعاون الثقافي الدولي.

    كيفية التقديم

    لتقديم كمشارك في تجمع التعاون الثقافي الدولي العادل – اللغة؛ يُرجى ملء نموذج القديم أدناه. ستتولى لجنة خارجية مسؤولية اختيار المشاركين. سيتم الإعلان عن المشاركين الذين وقع عليهم الاختيار قبل الأول من أغسطس. آخر موعد للتقديم هو الثاني من يوليو.

    ملاحظة: يمثل تبني موقف منفتح تجاه ثراء التنوع اللغوي نقطة البداية لهذا المؤتمر. إننا ندرك أن كون نموذج التقديم باللغة الإنجليزية ليس بالشيء المثالي في هذا الصدد. في التجمع نفسه، سنحاول إجراء مناقشات باللغات الأم للمشاركين. يُرجى ذكر اللغات المفضلة لك عند بملء نموذج التقديم.


    استكشاف موضوع عام 2020: اللغة

    على الرغم من الضغط الذي يصيب العلاقات الدولية وخروج بريطانيا العظمى رسميًا من الاتحاد الأوروبي، إلا أن اللغة الإنجليزية لا تزال هي اللغة الأكثر استخدامًا في التعاملات اليومية للعديد من القطاعات العاملة على المستوى الدولي، بما في ذلك قطاع الفنون والآداب. قوة اللغة الإنجليزية ونفوذها أمر لا لبس فيه وإنها لغة منتشرة في كل مكان. إنها لغة التواصل المشتركة التي تمكّن العديد من شعوب أوروبا والعالم الذي لم يتوفر لهم التواصل في السابق من التحدث مع بعضهم البعض، وعلى نطاق غير مسبوق. إن قوة امتلاك لغة مشتركة تتجلى عندما ننظر، على سبيل المثال، إلى مستوى التبادل الثقافي بين إسبانيا وبلدان أمريكا الجنوبية. إلا أن هيمنة لغات معينة يستبعد بعض الأصوات والمفاهيم من النقاش، ويكشف عن هياكل قوى عالمية أكبر عن طريق الحجب التدريجي للغات وأصوات أخرى حول العالم.

    إن التواصل المفتوح والمتكرر يُعتبر بدرجة كبيرة من أهم الشروط الأساسية للتعاون الثقافي العادل ويميّزنا كأشخاص. ومع ذلك، في السياقات الدولية المختلفة، يمكن لطريقة استخدام اللغة أن تغلق قنوات الاتصال بدلاً من أن تفتحها. في إطار التعاون الفني الدولي، في الغالب ما تُتخذ القرارات المهمة بشأن اللغة الطبيعية المختارة، والصياغة المناسبة، والاستخدام المحدد، والإعلام ومعنى اللغة، دون وعي وبلا أدلة ذاتية. وهذا ينتج عنه تداعيات مهمة على كل من الشركاء وأصحاب المصلحة الآخرين وأيضًا على العمل نفسه. ونتيجةً لغياب هذا الوعي عند اتخاذ القرارات، فإن الكثير من أشكال التعاون الدولي يؤجج بلا قصد فروق القوى العالمية وهذا بدوره يعزز هيمنة العالم الأنجلوساكسوني التي تبرز في سيطرة اللغة الإنجليزية باعتبارها لغة التواصل المشتركة. على سبيل المثال، لا يزال التاريخ الاستعماري للعديد من دول جنوب العالم واضحًا في المفردات والمصطلحات المتوقعة في طلبات التمويل. وبدلاً من انتقاد الأيديولوجيات المهيمنة وتحدي الظلم، تتسبب العديد من المشروعات الثقافية الدولية دون قصد في إعادة إنتاج هياكل القوى الموجودة، وهذا بدوره يحول دون التعاون العادل.

    وبشكلٍ عام، يستطيع المرء أن يميز ثلاثة جوانب من اللغة تكون عرضةً إلى الترتيب بشكل غير عادل ضمن التعاون الثقافي؛ الجوانب الثلاثة كلها تنطوي على اتخاذ قرارات حيوية من المفترض ألا تُتخذ دون وعي وكأنها مسألة بديهية ولكن يجب اتخاذها في ضوء وسياق الفكرة المثالية للتعاون الثقافي الدولي العادل.

    أولاً وقبل كل شيء، لدينا لغة اتصال مختارة [voertaal]، وهي لغة يكثر استخدامها في التعاون الدولي سواءً كانت لغة تواصل مشتركة أو لغةً مشتركةً موروثةً من حقبة الاستعمار الماضية. ونظرًا لأن اللغة من المكونات العميقة للهوية الوجودية والثقافية والفنية للفرد، فإن اتخاذ قرار لغة التواصل المشتركة مثل الإنجليزية أو الفرنسية في الغالب ما يتم بسرعة كبيرة وتلقائيًا، ومثل هذا القرار يمكنه تقييد حرية التعبير الفني والتنوع اللغوي مما يعزز الاستياء الذي يعود إلى حقبة الاستعمار الماضية. في حين أن إهمال الفروق البسيطة في الثقافات اللغوية واللهجات الأقل شهرةً (مثل الإنجليزية العامية الأمريكية الإفريقية) قد يكون أمرًا شائعًا، إلا أن التعاون العادل بين الثقافات يتطلب أن يتغلب المرء على ما لديه من تحيزات متأصلة حول استخدام اللغة. هذا الإهمال الأيديولوجي للفروق البسيطة في الثقافات اللغوية، وأيضًا اللهجات غير المعترف بها (مثل الإنجليزية العامية الأمريكية الإفريقية)، يمثل واحدًا من أصعب التحديات ولكن لا يستحيل التغلب عليه في الصراع من أجل التعاون العادل بين الثقافات.

    ثانيًا، ضمن لغة التواصل المختارة، يكون للمفردات المستخدمة دور حيوي في ما يتعلق بتوقع صياغة معينة في طلبات التمويل وكذلك في ما يتعلق بالملكية الفنية لكل صانع في الخطاب الفني المشترك الخاص بالعمل الذي تجري صناعته. هذه المفردات قد تكون "غير عادلة" عندما تعمل ضمنيًا من خلال أولويات التمويل في البلدان الأوروبية التي تتطلب من الدول ذات الموارد الأقل الامتثال والتنافس من وضع الحرمان.

    وأخيرًا، يجب أن نأخذ في الاعتبار جانبين وثيقي الارتباط في اللغة، وهما الطريقة التي تُستخدم بها المفردات المختارة في لغة التواصل المختارة والجانب الثاني هو معنى هذه الكلمات. في الحوارات بين الثقافات التي تكون ضمن التعاون الفني الدولي، في الغالب تتولد مشاعر من سوء الفهم وخيبة الأمل عندما تُستخدم الكلمات بشكل مختلف أو عندما تستحضر روابط أو نوايا متباينة مما يؤدي إلى التباين في فهم الكلمات نفسها. في الحوار بين الثقافات، على المرء دائمًا توقع احتمالات هذه الفروق الدلالية وأن يتحقق مما إذا كان الفرد تتوفر لديه عادات وفرضيات لغوية مشتركة مع الشريك أو وجود عادات مغايرة في ثقافة الفرد.

    كل هذه الجوانب من اللغة لها دور على ثلاثة مستويات: (1) في العملية الإبداعية والمهنية بين الفنانين؛ (2) في التواصل بين الصناع والجمهور (أي العمل الفني نفسه)؛ (3) بين الصناع ومموليهم أو مديريهم. في كل سياق من هذه السياقات، يجب اتخاذ بعض القرارات بشأن جميع جوانب اللغة الثلاثة.






    لغة التواصل

    لغة التواصل المشتركة المختارة في التعاون الفني (من المحتمل الاستعانة بمترجم)

    لغة العمل الفني (إن وجد)

    اللغة المسموح بها في طلب التمويل (أي الحصول على تمويل)


    الخطاب الفني المشترك داخل العملية الإبداعية

    الخطاب الفني الذي يعبر عنه العمل الفني

    المفردات المتوقعة في طلب التمويل (أي الكلمات المطلوب استخدامها)


    معنى الكلمات واستخدامها ضمن الحوار بين الثقافات المتعلق بالعملية الإبداعية

    معنى الكلمات واستخدامها ضمن الخطابات الفنية المشتركة التي يعبر عنها العمل الفني

    استخدام الصياغة المتوقعة في طلب التمويل






















    في سياق التعاون الثقافي الدولي، في الغالب ما يتم اتخاذ القرارات المتعلقة باللغة دون الانتباه إلى تولد مجالات حصرية تأخذ الحرية الفنية والإنصاف كأمر مسلم به، وفي الوقت نفسه التأكيد على التأثير القوي لأصحاب المصلحة الأكثر نفوذًا.

    ونتيجةً لذلك، بدلاً من تفكيك ديناميكيات القوى الموجودة في عالم الفن المعاصر، يتم استنساخ/تكرار علاقات قوى غير متكافئة. يهدف هذا الاجتماع إلى كسر هذا التوجه من خلال اتخاذنا قرارات صريحة حول اللغة، والتفكير في كل من المبادئ الأخلاقية والتدابير العملية التي على أساسها نستطيع إعادة ترتيب التعاون الثقافي الدولي بحيث يكون عادلاً من حيث اللغة.
    وكما هو الحال في العام الماضي، سيتم إعداد تقرير حول نتائج هذه المناقشات وسيتم عرضه واستخدامه في إجراء المزيد من النقاشات حول مفهوم العدالة في التعاون الثقافي الدولي.


    ملاحظة: ندرك في هذا النص أننا أنفسنا نستخدم لغة معينة ونبرة معينة ومفردات معينة. ونشجع المشاركين على فعل الشيء نفسه واستخدام لغتهم ونبرتهم ومفرداتهم. يمثل تبني موقف منفتح تجاه ثراء التنوع اللغوي نقطة البداية لهذا المؤتمر.

  • खुला आह्वान: फेयर अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग- भाषा

    Sculpture 'Dismemberment' by Anish Kapoor

    Photo: Anish Kapoor. Image via WikiMediaCommons.

    खुला आह्वान: फेयर अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग- भाषा

    4 June 2020
    खुला आह्वान

    फेयर अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग सभाओं की एक श्रृंखला है, जिसमें DutchCulture और अंतरराष्ट्रीय साझेदार अंतरराष्ट्रीय स्तर पर स्रोत और स्वीकृत आचार संहिता की संभावना का पता लगाते हैं। प्रत्येक सभा में एक विशिष्ट विषय शामिल होता है: 2018 में वित्त पोषण, 2019 में जलवायु परिवर्तन, और इस वर्ष 18 सितंबर को एम्स्टर्डम में फोरम ऑन यूरोपियन कल्चर के दौरान भाषा। इस श्रृंखला की पृष्ठभूमि और लक्ष्यों के बारे में अधिक जानकारी के लिए नीचे देखें।
    विदेश में काम करने और अंतर्राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर सहयोग करने पर, सांस्कृतिक पेशेवर एक ऐसे स्थान में प्रवेश करते हैं जो पहले से ही सांस्कृतिक अंतर और संरचनात्मक शक्ति असमानताओं के कारण विशिष्ट है। इन असमानताओं में से एक भाषा के उपयोग से उत्पन्न होती है। यह तीन तरीकों से हो सकता है:
    1.           संचार की चुनी हुई भाषा आमतौर पर एक पक्ष को दूसरे पर लाभ देती है।
    2.           प्रयुक्त शब्दावली यह निर्धारित करती है कि संदेश कैसे मूल्यवान है।
    3.           उपयोग किए गए शब्द के अर्थ किसी की सांस्कृतिक पृष्ठभूमि पर निर्भर करते हैं।
    हम अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक निर्देशकों, कलाकारों, विचारकों, वैज्ञानिकों, आलोचकों, नीति निर्धारकों और भाषा मुद्दों पर केन्द्रित वित्त-प्रदाताओं और निष्पक्ष अंतरराष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग के विषय पर सक्रिय रूप से संलग्नों से एकत्रित होने और भाषा के उपयोग के संबंध में उचित तरीके से कैसे एक तरह से अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सहयोग का आयोजन किया जा सकता है, इस पर चर्चा करने के लिए आह्वान करते हैं। विषय भाषा के संबंध में अधिक विस्तार से जानकारी के लिए नीचे देखें।

    सभा के लक्ष्य

    फेयर अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग का उद्देश्य अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग को इस तरीके से बढ़ावा देना है जो विभिन्न कामकाजी तौर-तरीकों को पहचानता है और सांस्कृतिक अंतरों में परस्पर सम्मान को बढ़ावा देते हुए असमान प्रणालियों को स्वीकार करता है। सितंबर 2020 में इस सत्र के दौरान, हम खुद से पूछेंगे: हम भाषा के संबंध में निष्पक्षता के साथ उचित तरीके से अंतरराष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग की व्यवस्था कैसे कर सकते हैं? हम आपको दो कार्य सत्रों में सक्रिय रूप से भाग लेने के लिए कहते हैं जो समूहों में होंगे। सत्र निम्नलिखित दो प्रश्नों को कवर करेंगे:

    1. नैतिक हम निष्पक्ष अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग में भाषा के उपयोग से संबंधित कौन से नैतिक सिद्धांत साझा करते हैं? अर्थात समान अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग को बढ़ावा देने के लिए भाषा का उपयोग कैसे किया जा सकता है और वे कौन से नैतिक सिद्धांत हैं जो गैर-विभेदक भाषाई स्थितियों के संबंध में सर्वोत्तम प्रथाओं का मार्गदर्शन कर सकते हैं?
    2. प्रायोगिक भाषा के उपयोग के संबंध में अधिक निष्पक्ष अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग की व्यवस्था करने में आपके संगठनों, आपकी वित्त पोषण प्रणाली, भागीदारों के साथ या दर्शकों के साथ अवसर और चुनौतियां क्या हैं? यानी भाषाई निष्पक्षता से संबंधित साझा नैतिक सिद्धांतों को साकार करने के लिए हम कौन से व्यावहारिक उपकरण या तरीके विकसित कर सकते हैं? हम किन सबसे अच्छे और 'विफल' मामलों का उल्लेख कर सकते हैं?

    इस चर्चा का समर्थन मुख्य वक्ता और फेयर अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग - भाषा से संबंधित अतिरिक्त व्याख्यानों द्वारा किया जाएगा। पिछले साल की तरह, इन चर्चाओं के परिणामों को एक रिपोर्ट के रूप में प्रस्तुत किया जाएगा और अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग के भीतर फेयर प्रथाओं पर वार्तालाप को आगे बढ़ाने के लिए उपयोग किया जाएगा।

    आवेदन कैसे करें

    फेयर अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग - भाषा में एक प्रतिभागी के रूप में आवेदन करने के लिए कृपया आवेदन पत्र भरें। प्रतिभागियों का चयन एक बाहरी समिति द्वारा किया जाएगा। प्रतिभागियों के चयन की घोषणा 1ली अगस्त से पहले की जाएगी। आवेदन की अंतिम तिथि 2 जुलाई है।

    नोट: भाषाई विविधता की समृद्धि के प्रति एक खुला रवैया इस सम्मेलन का प्रारंभिक बिंदु है। हम जानते हैं कि इस संबंध में अंग्रेजी में आवेदन पत्र आदर्श नहीं है। सभा में, हम मातृभाषाओं में चर्चा को सुविधाजनक बनाने का प्रयास करेंगे। आवेदन पत्र भरते समय कृपया अपनी पसंदीदा भाषा प्रदान करें।

    विषय 2020 का अन्वेषण: भाषा

    इस तथ्य के बावजूद कि अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संबंध दबाव में हैं, और ग्रेट ब्रिटेन अब यूरोपीय संघ का औपचारिक हिस्सा नहीं है, फिर भी अंग्रेजी कला सहित कई अंतर्राष्ट्रीय परिचालन क्षेत्रों के दिन-प्रतिदिन की गतिविधियों में सबसे अधिक इस्तेमाल की जाने वाली भाषा है। इसका बल अचूक और सर्वव्यापी है। यह ऐसी लोकव्यापी भाषा है, जो एक तरफ, यूरोप और दुनिया के कई पहले से असंबद्ध लोगों को एक दूसरे से बात करने की अनुमति देती है - एक अभूतपूर्व पैमाने पर। एक आपसी भाषा होने की शक्ति तब दिखाई देती है, जब हम सांस्कृतिक आदान-प्रदान के स्तर पर विचार करते हैं, उदाहरण के लिए, स्पेन और दक्षिण अमेरिकाके देश।फिर भी कुछ निश्चित भाषाओं की प्रमुखता कुछ विशिष्ट आवाज़ों या अवधारणाओं को बातचीत से बाहर रखती है, जो दुनिया भर की अन्य भाषाओं और आवाज़ों को धीरे-धीरे बंद करके बड़ी वैश्विक शक्ति संरचनाओं को उजागर करती है।

    खुले और लगातार संचार को व्यापक रूप से उचित सांस्कृतिक सहयोग की आवश्यक शर्तें माना जाता है और हमें एक लोग के रूप में परिभाषित करता है। हालांकि, असमान अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संदर्भों में, जिस तरह से भाषा का उपयोग किया जाता है, वह संचार के चैनलों को खोलने के बजाय बंद कर सकता है। अंतर्राष्ट्रीय कलात्मक सहयोगों के भीतर, चुनी हुई प्राकृतिक भाषा के बारे में महत्वपूर्ण निर्णय, उपयुक्त शब्दांकन, विशिष्ट उपयोग, मीडिया और भाषा के अर्थ, अक्सर अनजाने में और स्व-प्रमाणन से बाहर किए जाते हैं। इसके दोनों भागीदारों, अन्य हितधारकों और कार्य के लिए महत्वपूर्ण परिणाम हैं। सचेत निर्णय लेने की इस कमी के परिणामस्वरूप कई अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सहयोग अनजाने में वैश्विक शक्ति मतभेदों को मजबूत करते हैं - लोकव्यापी भाषा के रूप में अंग्रेजी के प्रभुत्व के माध्यम से प्रभुता प्राप्त एंग्लो-सैक्सन दुनिया को मजबूत करते हुए। उदाहरण के लिए, धन के लिए आवेदनों की अपेक्षित शब्दावली में कई वैश्विक दक्षिणी देशों का औपनिवेशिक इतिहास प्रत्यक्ष रहता है। हावी विचारधाराओं की आलोचना करने और अन्याय को चुनौती देने के बजाय, कई अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक परियोजनाएं अनजाने में मौजूदा सत्ता संरचनाओं को पुन: निर्मित करती हैं, जिससे निष्पक्ष सहयोग की संभावना बाधित होती है।
    मोटे तौर पर, कोई भी भाषा के तीन पहलुओं को अलग कर सकता है जो सांस्कृतिक सहयोग के साथ गलत तरीके से व्यवस्थित होने के लिए प्रावृत होते हैं - तीनों पहलूओं में महत्वपूर्ण निर्णय होते हैं जिन्हें निस्संदेह अनजाने में विषय नहीं बनाया जाना चाहिए, बल्कि निष्पक्ष अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग के आदर्श के संबंध में सचेत रूप से।

    सबसे पहले, हमनें संचार के लिए भाषा [voertaal] चुनी है, जो अंतरराष्ट्रीय सहयोग में अक्सर एक लोकव्यापी भाषा या एक आम भाषा है जो औपनिवेशिक अतीत से विरासत में मिली है। चूँकि भाषा किसी की अस्तित्वगत, सांस्कृतिक और कलात्मक पहचान के लिए गहन रूप से सर्जक है, इसलिए अंग्रेज़ी या फ्रेंच जैसी भाषा के लिए निर्णय अक्सर जल्दी और स्वचालित रूप से किया जाता है, क्योंकि इस तरह के निर्णय से कलात्मक अभिव्यक्ति और भाषाई विविधता की स्वतंत्रता पर अंकुश लग सकती है, फलस्वरूप औपनिवेशिक अतीत के प्रति अवशिष्ट रोष को सशक्त कर सकती है। अल्पसंख्यक भाषाई संस्कृतियों और कम परिचित बोलियों “जैसे अफ्रीकी, अमेरिकी, वर्नाक्युलर, अंग्रेजी” की उपेक्षा आम हो सकती है, निष्पक्ष अंतर-सांस्कृतिक सहयोगों के लिए आवश्यक है कि भाषा के उपयोग के आसपास निहित पूर्वाग्रहों को दूर किया जाए। अल्पसंख्यक भाषाई संस्कृतियों की इस तरह की एक वैचारिक लापरवाही, गैर-मान्यता प्राप्त बोलियों (जैसे अफ्रीकी अमेरिकी वर्नाक्यूलर अंग्रेजी) के संबंध में भी, सबसे निर्णायक में से एक है, लेकिन निष्पक्ष अंतर-सांस्कृतिक सहयोग के लिए संघर्ष में दूर करने के लिए काफी अनियंत्रित चुनौतियां भी हैं।

    दूसरा, संचार की एक चुनी हुई भाषा के भीतर, शब्दावली का इस्तेमाल एक महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाती है, धन के लिए आवेदनों में निश्चित शब्दांकन अपेक्षाओं के साथ और किए जा रहे काम के साझा कलात्मक संवाद में प्रत्येक निर्माता के कलात्मक स्वामित्व, दोनों में। इस तरह की शब्दावली 'अनुचित' हो सकती है जब यह यूरोपीय देशों की वित्त पोषण प्राथमिकताओं के माध्यम से कार्य करती है, जो कम संसाधन वाले देशों के लिए अनुपालन और एक वंचित स्थिति से प्रतिस्पर्द्धा करना आवश्यक कर देती है।

    अंत में, हमें भाषा के बारीकी से संबंधित दो पहलुओं पर ध्यान देना चाहिए, अर्थात् एक तरफ जिस तरह से संचार के लिए एक चुनी हुई भाषा में चुनी गई शब्दावली का उपयोग किया जाता है, और दूसरी तरफ, इन शब्दों का अर्थ। अंतर्राष्ट्रीय कलात्मक सहयोगों के अंतःसांस्कृतिक संवादों में, गलतफहमी और निराशा की भावनाएं अक्सर उत्पन्न होती हैं जब शब्दों का उपयोग अलग-अलग तरीके से किया जाता है या एक ही शब्द की विशिष्ट समझ को जन्म देने वाले अलग-अलग संघों या इरादों को जोड़ दिया जाता है। एक अन्तः सांस्कृतिक संवाद के भीतर, किसी को हमेशा ऐसी अर्थ संबंधी विसंगतियों की संभावना का अनुमान लगाना चाहिए और यह देखना चाहिए कि क्या किसी की भाषाई आदतें और धारणाएं साझेदार द्वारा साझा की जाती हैं या किसी की अपनी संस्कृति के प्रति उदासीन हैं।
    भाषा के ये सभी पहलू तीन स्तरों पर भूमिका निर्वाह करते हैं: (1) रचनात्मक और पेशेवर प्रक्रिया के भीतर कलाकारों के बीच; (2) निर्माताओं और जनता के बीच संचार में (यानी स्वयं कलाकृति); (3) निर्माताओं और उनके धन प्रदाताओं या दाताओं के बीच। इनमें से प्रत्येक संदर्भ में, भाषा के सभी तीन पहलुओं के संबंध में निर्णय किए जाने हैं।




    निर्माता-निधि प्रदाता

    संचार की भाषा

    कलात्मक सहयोग (संभवतः अनुवादक के साथ) के लिए चुनी गई लोकव्यापी भाषा

    कलाकृति की भाषा (यदि कोई है)

    धन के लिए आवेदन(यानी धन तक पहुंच) के लिए अनुमत भाषा


    रचनात्मक प्रक्रिया के भीतर साझाकृत कलात्मक संवाद

    कलाकृति में अभिव्यक्त संवाद

    धन के लिए आवेदन में अपेक्षित शब्दावली (किन शब्दों का उपयोग करना है))


    रचनात्मक प्रक्रिया के आंतर-सांस्कृतिक वार्तालाप के भीतर शब्दों का अर्थ और उपयोग

    कलाकृति में व्यक्त किए गए साझा कलात्मक संवाद के भीतर शब्दों का अर्थ और उपयोग

    धन के लिए आवेदन में शब्दांकन का अपेक्षित उपयोग


    अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग के संदर्भ में, भाषा के बारे में निर्णय अक्सर संवेदनशीलता के बिना लिए जाते हैं जो विशिष्ट रणक्षेत्र पैदा करते हैं जो अधिक शक्तिशाली हितधारकों के प्रभाव पर बल देते हुए कलात्मक स्वतंत्रता और समानता को यूहीं लेते हैं।

    नतीजतन, समकालीन कला की दुनिया में मौजूदा सत्ता की गतिशीलता को विखंडित करने के बजाय, असमान सशक्त संबंधों को पुन: प्रस्तुत/ दोहराया जाता है। इस बैठक का उद्देश्य भाषा के बारे में हमारे निर्णय को स्पष्ट करके इस प्रवृत्ति को तोड़ना है, और नैतिक सिद्धांतों और व्यावहारिक उपायों दोनों को प्रतिबिंबित करना है जिसके आधार पर हम अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग को पुनर्व्यवस्थित कर सकते हैं ताकि वे भाषा के संबंध में निष्पक्ष हों।

    पिछले साल की तरह, इन चर्चाओं के परिणामों को एक रिपोर्ट के रूप में प्रस्तुत किया जाएगा और अंतर्राष्ट्रीय सांस्कृतिक सहयोग के भीतर फेयर पर वार्तालाप को आगे बढ़ाने के लिए उपयोग किया जाएगा।


    नोट: हम जानते हैं कि इस पाठ में हम स्वयं एक निश्चित भाषा, एक निश्चित स्वर और एक निश्चित शब्दावली का उपयोग करते हैं। हम प्रतिभागियों को समान करने और अपनी भाषा, स्वर और शब्दावली का उपयोग करने के लिए प्रोत्साहित करेंगे। भाषाई विविधता की समृद्धि के प्रति एक खुला रवैया इस सम्मेलन का प्रारंभिक बिंदु है।

  • CONVOCATORIA ABIERTA: Cooperación Cultural Internacional Justa - Idioma

    Sculpture 'Dismemberment' by Anish Kapoor

    Photo: Anish Kapoor. Image via WikiMediaCommons.

    CONVOCATORIA ABIERTA: Cooperación Cultural Internacional Justa - Idioma

    4 June 2020
    Convocatoria abierta

    Cooperación Cultural Internacional Justa es una serie de reuniones con las que DutchCulture y sus socios internacionales analizan la posibilidad de un código de conducta de origen internacional aceptado en todo el mundo. Cada reunión cubre un tema específico: financiación en 2018, cambio climático en 2019, e idioma este año, el 18 de septiembre, en Ámsterdam, durante el Foro sobre Cultura Europea. Vea a continuación para obtener más información sobre los antecedentes y las metas de esta serie.
    Cuando se trabaja en el exterior y existe colaboración internacional, los profesionales de la cultura ingresan a un espacio que ya está caracterizado por las diferencias culturales y las desigualdades estructurales de poder. Una de estas desigualdades surge del uso del idioma. Esto puede ocurrir de tres maneras:
    1.           El idioma de comunicación que se elige suele beneficiar más a una parte que a la otra.
    2.           El vocabulario que se usa determina la valoración que se hace del mensaje.
    3.           El significado de las palabras que se usan varía de acuerdo con los antecedentes culturales de cada persona.
    Convocamos a directores, artistas, pensadores, científicos, críticos, responsables de formulación de políticas y financiadores internacionales del ámbito de la cultura con enfoque en las cuestiones relacionadas con el idioma y que participen activamente en temas relacionados con la cooperación cultural internacional justa a reunirse y analizar cómo se puede organizar la cooperación internacional de forma que sea justa con respecto al uso del idioma. Vea un análisis más amplio del tema idioma a continuación.

    Metas de la reunión

    El propósito de la cooperación cultural internacional justa es promover la colaboración cultural internacional de manera que se reconozcan modalidades de trabajo diferentes y sistemas desiguales al tiempo que se promueve el respeto mutuo entre culturas diferentes. Durante la sesión de septiembre de 2020, nos preguntaremos: ¿cómo podríamos arreglar la cooperación cultural internacional de manera que se pueda considerar justa con respecto al idioma? Le pedimos que participe activamente en dos sesiones de trabajo que se realizarán en grupos. Estas sesiones cubrirán las dos preguntas siguientes:
    1.    Ética

    ¿Qué principios éticos compartimos respecto al uso del idioma en la cooperación cultural internacional justa?; es decir, ¿cómo se podría utilizar el idioma para promover la cooperación cultural internacional justa y cuáles con los principios éticos que podrían guiar las mejores prácticas en relación con condiciones lingüísticas no discriminatorias?
    2.    Práctica

    ¿Qué oportunidades y desafíos conllevaría hacer arreglos para una cooperación cultural internacional más justa con respecto al uso del idioma en sus organizaciones, sus sistemas de financiación, con sus socios o con el público en general?; es decir, ¿qué herramientas y métodos prácticos podríamos desarrollar con el fin de comprender los principios éticos compartidos respecto a la justicia lingüística? ¿Cuáles son los mejores casos y los casos «fallidos» que podemos consultar?
    Se apoyará el debate mediante la participación de un orador principal y lecturas adicionales sobre el tema Cooperación Cultural Internacional Justa - Idioma. Al igual que el año pasado, los resultados de estos debates se presentarán en un informe y se usarán para continuar la conversación sobre las prácticas justas dentro de la cooperación cultural internacional.

    Cómo solicitar participar

    Para postularse como participante de la reunión sobre Cooperación Cultural Internacional Justa - Idioma, complete el formulario de solicitud. Un comité externo hará la selección de los participantes y anunciará los nombres antes del 1.º de agosto. El plazo para presentar solicitudes vence el 2 de julio.

    Nota: Una actitud abierta hacia la riqueza de la diversidad lingüística es el punto de partida de esta conferencia. Somos conscientes de que el hecho de que el formulario de solicitud esté en inglés no es lo ideal en estas circunstancias. No obstante, en la reunión, intentaremos que los participantes debatan en su lengua materna. Escriba su idioma o idiomas de preferencia al completar el formulario de solicitud.

    Análisis del tema para 2020: Idioma

    A pesar de que las relaciones internacionales se encuentran bajo presión, y que Gran Bretaña ya no forma parte de la Unión Europea, el inglés todavía es el idioma más comúnmente usado en las transacciones diarias de muchos sectores que operan internacionalmente, incluido el del arte. Su fuerza es innegable y omnipresente. Es la lengua franca que permite que muchas personas de Europa y del mundo que previamente no estaban conectadas se comuniquen entre sí, a una escala sin precedentes. El poder de tener un idioma común se hace visible cuando consideramos el nivel del intercambio cultural que existe entre, por ejemplo, España y los países hispanoamericanos. Sin embargo, la prominencia de un determinado idioma excluye ciertas voces o conceptos de la conversación, exponiendo estructuras globales de poder más grandes al tiempo que silencia lentamente otros idiomas y voces del mundo.

    Se considera en gran medida que la comunicación abierta y frecuente es la principal condición esencial de una colaboración cultural justa y nos define como un pueblo. Sin embargo, en contextos internacionales disímiles, el modo en que se usa el idioma puede cerrar, en lugar de abrir, canales de comunicación. Dentro de las colaboraciones artísticas internacionales, la toma de decisiones importantes sobre el idioma natural elegido, el texto apropiado, el uso específico, los medios y el significado del idioma a menudo se realiza de forma inconsciente y sin pruebas manifiestas. Esto tiene importantes consecuencias tanto para los socios, otras partes interesadas y la obra en sí misma. Como consecuencia de esta falta de toma de decisiones consciente, muchas colaboraciones internacionales fortalecieron, sin quererlo, las diferencias del poder global, reforzando la hegemonía del mundo anglosajón expresada a través del dominio del inglés como lengua franca. Por ejemplo, la historia colonial de muchos países del hemisferio sur sigue siendo evidente en el vocabulario esperado en las solicitudes de financiamiento. En lugar de criticar las ideologías dominantes y desafiar las injusticias, muchos proyectos culturales internacionales involuntariamente reproducen las estructuras de poder existentes, impidiendo la posibilidad de colaboración justa.
    En términos amplios, uno puede distinguir tres aspectos del idioma que son propensos a organizarse injustamente dentro de las colaboraciones culturales; todos estos tres aspectos implican decisiones cruciales que no se deberían hacer, por norma, de forma involuntaria, sino de forma consciente respecto del ideal de la cooperación cultural internacional justa.

    En primer lugar, contamos con un idioma de comunicación [voertaal], que en las colaboraciones internacionales con frecuencia es una lengua franca o un idioma común heredado de un pasado colonial. Ya que el idioma es una parte profundamente constitutiva de la identidad existencial, cultural y artística de uno, la decisión de una lengua franca, como el inglés o el francés, se hace con frecuencia demasiado rápido y automáticamente, ya que tal decisión puede restringir la libertad de las expresiones artísticas y la diversidad lingüística, reforzando los resentimientos residuales del pasado colonial. Si bien despreciar culturas lingüísticas más pequeñas y dialectos menos familiares (como el inglés afroestadounidense vernáculo en los EE. UU.) puede ser un lugar común, las colaboraciones interculturales justas requieren que uno pueda superar los prejuicios inherentes en torno al uso del idioma. Tal negligencia ideológica de las culturas lingüísticas más pequeñas, también con respecto a los dialectos no reconocidos (como el inglés afroestadounidense vernáculo), es uno de los desafíos más decisivos, pero al mismo tiempo rebeldes, que se deben superar en el esfuerzo por alcanzar colaboraciones interculturales justas.

    En segundo lugar, en un idioma de comunicación elegido, el vocabulario que se utiliza juega un papel crucial, tanto en lo que respecta a las expectativas de ciertas palabras en las solicitudes de financiación, así como también en relación con la propiedad artística de cada creador del discurso artístico compartido de la obra que se realiza. Tal vocabulario puede ser «injusto» cuando funciona tácitamente a través de prioridades de fondos de los países europeos que requieren que los países con menos recursos cumplan y compitan desde una posición de desventaja.
    Por último, debemos considerar dos aspectos del idioma muy relacionados entre sí, a saber, por un lado, el modo en el cual se utiliza el vocabulario elegido en un idioma de comunicación elegido, y, por el otro, el significado de las palabras. En diálogos interculturales de colaboraciones artísticas internacionales, surgen con frecuencia sentimientos de incomprensión y desaliento cuando las palabras se utilizan de forma diferente o se conjuran asociaciones o intenciones divergentes que dan origen a entendimientos distintivos de las mismas palabras. Dentro de un diálogo intercultural, siempre se debe anticipar la posibilidad de tales discrepancias semánticas y verificar si los hábitos lingüísticos y las presunciones de una parte son compartidos por la otra o pertenecen a la idiosincrasia de la propia cultura de una de ellas.
    Todos estos aspectos del idioma tienen incidencia en tres niveles: (1) dentro del proceso creativo y profesional entre artistas; (2) en la comunicación entre los creadores y el público (es decir, la obra de arte en sí); (3) entre los creadores y sus financiadores o mandantes. En cada uno de estos contextos, existen decisiones que se deben hacer respecto a los tres aspectos del idioma.





    Idioma de comunicación

    La lengua franca elegida de la colaboración artística (posiblemente con traductor)

    Idioma de la obra de arte (si lo hubiere)

    Idioma permitido de la solicitud de fondos (es decir, acceso a los fondos)


    Discurso artístico compartido dentro del proceso creativo

    Discurso artístico expresado en la obra de arte

    Vocabulario esperado en la solicitud de fondos (qué palabras usar)


    Significado y uso de palabras dentro del diálogo intercultural del proceso creativo

    Significado y uso de palabras dentro del discurso artístico compartido expresado en la obra de arte

    El uso previsto de las palabras en la solicitud de fond


    En el contexto de colaboraciones culturales internacionales, las decisiones sobre el idioma con frecuencia se toman sin sensibilidad, lo que genera ámbitos de exclusión que dan como un hecho la libertad artística y la equidad mientras que enfatizan la influencia de los titulares de intereses más poderosos.

    Como resultado, en lugar de deconstruir la dinámica del poder existente en el mundo del arte contemporáneo, las relaciones desiguales de poder se reproducen o replican. Esta reunión tiene por objetivo quebrar esta tendencia al hacer que nuestras decisiones acerca del idioma sean explícitas, y reflejen tanto los principios éticos y las medidas prácticas en base a las cuales podemos reorganizar colaboraciones culturales internacionales para que sean justas con respecto al idioma.

    Al igual que el año pasado, los resultados de estos debates se presentarán en un informe y se usarán para continuar la conversación sobre las prácticas justas dentro de la cooperación cultural internacional.


    Nota: Somos conscientes de que en este texto nosotros mismos usamos un determinado idioma, un determinado tono y un determinado vocabulario. Alentamos a los participantes a hacer lo mismo y a usar su propio idioma, tono y vocabulario. Una actitud abierta hacia la riqueza de la diversidad lingüística es el punto de partida de esta conferencia.


  • Translocality: artistic internationalisation after the corona crisis

    Gilgamesh, commissioned by Galway European Capital of Culture 2020.

    Photo: Colm Hogan

    Translocality: artistic internationalisation after the corona crisis

    2 June 2020
    COVID-19 urges us to re-establish the legitimation of working abroad and to reformulate ambitions regarding the moral and artistic challenges of globalisation.

    Writing from my new, somewhat hastily arranged home office in the otherwise so crowded city centre of Amsterdam, I can hear construction workers performing the probably long-postponed renovation activities of the empty hotels and restaurants down the street. On my kitchen table annex desk, I see newspapers in which epidemiologists, economists, virologists, philosophers and other intellectuals publicly speculate on both the structural causes and fundamental effects of the coronavirus. I imagine the multitude of people in this city working in ‘non-vital’ institutions, who would normally be so preoccupied by short-term worries but are now left wondering what the raison d’être of their organisation actually consists of. And while I still smugly savour the lingering aftertaste of my elaborately prepared lunch and smell the remarkably fresh air wafting in through the window, I feel my fingers spelling out the word ‘crisis’.

    It has fast become commonplace to describe the current situation as a crisis. Yet it is worthwhile, recalling the remarkable etymological accuracy of the word. The Greek word krísis does not just denote a calamity, but first and foremost a ‘turning point’, which demands a strong ‘decision’ that divides (krínein) the situation prior to the crisis from the fundamentally different situation after the crisis. A krísis is a ‘trial’ – and the construction workers renovating the hotel’s foundations, the employees rethinking the institutions they work for and the intellectuals reflecting on the virus’s macro-context all seem to hold seats in the trial’s jury.

    Taking part in a trial involves a high sense of responsibility, i.e. the ability to respond. During the trying times of a crisis, in which reality becomes uncertain and confusing, it indeed becomes very difficult to properly respond to the present situation with tools and concepts that date from the pre-crisis world. Since our alleged progression is now arrested and the logic of the past no longer applies necessarily to the future, respond-ability becomes an act of rethinking seemingly self-evident ideas, of bravely reassessing the status quo. We cannot continue in the same old way, something has to change and for that to happen we need to respond and make strong decisions that is a genuine crisis.

    At first sight, cultural internationalisation might seem to be one of the least relevant topics in the current corona crisis. Most critical attention goes out to immediate questions concerning, for instance, the possibility of vaccinations, the need for a basic income, the ramifications of far-reaching surveillance techniques, the economic precariousness of cultural workers, and so on. However, if we truly want to respond to this crisis, we cannot gloss over an essential feature of almost every aspect of our cultural lives: its international connectedness. From the series we binge on our streaming services to the tunes we whistle under the shower, from the translated books we read to the majority of the performers of our national orchestras – it is through the internationalisation of the arts that we are connected to cultural expression stemming from all around the globe. Should the coronavirus situation prove to be a genuine krísis, so a turning point in history, then it will probably not pass over the globalisation of our cultural life. The question, then, becomes first of all: what can we learn from this situation about the internationalisation of the arts? That is, what does the virus reveal about this world that can be relevant for artists working abroad? And additionally, what will it be like to work internationally in a post-corona world? 

    In envisaging the future of cultural globalisation after the corona crisis, DutchCulture organised a colloquium where Maarten Doorman, philosophy professor at Maastricht University and VU Amsterdam, proposed the term ‘translocality’ as the central concept for rethinking the future of the international arts. In this article, I will try to demonstrate why translocality is an important concept in rethinking the future of cultural internationalisation, both by showing the urgency of these questions and by revisiting Doorman’s lecture, and by evaluating some of the critical questions raised during DutchCulture’s colloquium. 

    It becomes very difficult to properly respond to the present situation with tools and concepts that date from the pre-crisis world
    Cultural internationalisation: from ideality to reality

    To demonstrate the need to rethink the internationalisation of the arts, we must start with the old ideal of cultural cosmopolitanism. For centuries, the intrinsic value of an international orientation was beyond doubt for most European artists. The central truism that artistic practice should never be limited by contingent national borders led to the idea that cultural exchange between artists and audiences from different countries had the potential to fundamentally broaden the artist’s perspective beyond the limits in which bourgeois citizens were caught up (see e.g. Figes 2019). Hence, internationalisation became one of the key indicators of artistic freedom. Especially in the 20th century, transcending national borders became a foremost ambition of avant-gardists, intellectuals and artists – a mentality well illustrated by sociologist Rudolf Goldscheid in the 1920s: ‘’We have to learn to feel, think, want, and especially act internationally, with the very same passionate conviction with which people hitherto served nationalism or patriotism’'. 

    The main difference between Goldscheid’s age and the twenties of our century, however, is that we acutally live in a globalised world where internationalisation is not an ideality, but a reality (cf. Boon 2019). A world where even the remotest places on earth are connected with each other and where a single bat sold at a local Chinese market can cause a global pandemic, is an internationalised world per se. This internationalised reality is increasingly acknowledged by artists and cultural workers. Already in 2011, for instance, poet Megan Garr expressed the indiscernibility of the local and the global by rhetorically wondering: ‘’Who is left untouched by the world?’’ (Garr 2011). In the Berlin theatre Hebbel am Ufer (HAU), to give another example, one finds a programme of artists and performers of all over of the world, although most of them reside in Berlin, as a result of which HAU’s programme could be called local just as well as global (cf. Vanackeren 2019). Such ‘glocal’ phenomena are no longer contradictory in our present world; on the contrary, they have become very familiar to us. 

    In a globalised world, internationalisation is no longer an innocent ideal, but instead an inevitable reality that confronts cultural workers with complex moral and artistic challenges (cf. Janssens 2018). Whereas internationalisation used to represent the incontestable promise of artistic self-development, global solidarity and intercultural exchange, today we see that globalisation has put these traditional justifications for international projects under pressure (cf. Boon 2019). This does not mean that the cosmopolitan ideal no longer counts, but it has lost its self-evident innocence, its Selbstverständlichkeit.

    To understand this lost innocence, it helps to briefly mention four examples of the challenges confronting artists today. First, in a globalised world where a subway ticket to a suburb often gives access to greater cultural differences than a flight ticket to another gentrified city centre, the old idea that international exchange leads to intercultural exchange is no longer self-evident (cf. Vanhee and Imschoot 2018). Second, the old idea that internationalisation promotes equality among cultures is not at all self-evidently accomplished in a world where every international collaboration replicates structural global power differences that are often difficult to neutralise (cf. De Graan 2018, Bul 2019). Third, the idea that cultural internationalisation leads to international solidarity is not self-evident in a world where the blurring of national borders goes hand in hand with a revival of nationalist sentiments and protectionism (cf. Hall 1997). And, lastly, the promise of internationalisation as such is problematised in the light of climate change, for which the cultural sector also bears responsibility (cf. Chayka 2019). All these examples point to the structure of a krísis, in which the old idealistic logic and concepts are no longer sufficient to properly respond to the present world. 

    Although cultural internationalisation has lost its self-evident innocence, there are still many artists and cultural workers for whom internationalisation either represents an honest passion for a genuinely meaningful intercultural collaboration, or is simply a stark necessity in order to survive in a globalised world. A radical return to local practices – if that were possible at all – is therefore just as little an option as denying the present-day challenges of working internationally. Accordingly, one could argue that the challenge posed by the current crisis is to reformulate or rethink our international artistic ambitions in a way that is locally embedded. In other words, the challenge is to reconceive our international ambitions as translocal activities.

    HAU 1 theatre. Photo: Marcus Lieberenz
    From international to translocal

    The concept of translocality has been used in various contexts, especially media studies and migration studies (see e.g. Peth 2014 or Greiner & Sakdapolrak 2013, but also Lovink 1999 already in the ‘90s). It was recently theorised as a concept for cultural activities by Maarten Doorman in his essay Far-off and Nearby (commissioned by Nieuw Dakota), which he presented during a colloquium on translocality in the arts, organised by DutchCulture on the 30 April.

    Doorman states that globalisation has put the opposition between ‘global’ and ‘local’ practices under pressure, as a result of which the local now requires renewed signification. With the concept of ‘translocality’ Doorman attempts to articulate and bridge the old rigid opposition between the local and the global, by advocating artistic activities that manage to be oriented on other parts of the world without losing their intrinsic bonds with the locality they belong to. As examples of these translocal cultural initiatives, Doorman mentions Nieuw Dakota (Amsterdam), KiK (Kolderveen), A Tale of a Tub (Rotterdam), Kunstvereniging Diepenheim, the Translocal Institute for Contemporary Art (Budapest), the Neuer Aachener Kunstverein, Laboratoires d’Aubervilliers (Paris), 3331 Arts Chiyoda (Tokyo), and A4 (Chengdu). According to Doorman, traditional terms like ‘cosmopolitan’, ‘international’, ‘national’ or ‘regional’ are inadequate to accurately describe the ambition and practices of these institutes and initiatives. 

    One of the common denominators of these translocal institutes is that they do not blindly follow the dominant tendencies of cultural globalisation, but instead withdraw from what Doorman calls ‘the global world of art’. With this term, Doorman refers to the generic art world of prominent museums, wealthy galleries and international festivals that bear the same characteristics all around the globe and do not have an intrinsic connection with a specific locality. For example, the paintings by Pablo Picasso and Barnett Newman in the Stedelijk Museum could just as well be part of museum collections in Tokyo or New York, and the Holland Festival programme largely features performers and musicians that crisscross the globe from one globalised city to another. In this generic world, the value of art is determined by a worldwide market hierarchy, in which cultural production is traditionally oriented towards a Western centre.

    Translocal art, on the contrary, ‘emancipates the local’, by which Doorman means that it is intrinsically involved with the societal context and cultural background in which it comes into being. In other words, translocal art has a specific rather than a generic audience. Whereas in the past, working locally was often associated with provincialism and dilettantism – measuring artistic success by the number of customs stamps in one’s passport – Doorman wants to revalue the local by arguing that in a globalised world, one’s locality can be the locus of global movements and worldwide networks.

    Although locality is often associated with a region or municipality, the term does not refer to any top-down defined topographic entity (cf. Wojtowicz 2002), but rather to a social environment, whose borders are not determined from the outside, but from within or through the cultural activities themselves (cf. Smith, DeMeo & Widmann 2011) – locality is always a living Umwelt, a scene (cf. Eckenhaussen 2019: 247-9). Such a locality can transcend regional or even national borders, as can be seen, for example, in artistically productive cross-border regions such as Brabant-Antwerp, Enschede-Münster and Heerlen-Aachen-Liege. 

    The distinctive characteristic of translocal activities, therefore, is not so much their local embeddedness as such, but rather the fact that they paradoxically transcend the limits of their locality without neglecting the bonds with their locality. This means that translocal artists are oriented towards places beyond their locality without taking part in the generic global world of art. They are instead connected with the world by consciously standing in a node of worldwide networks, global mobility and multicultural diversity.

    If the corona crisis urges us to re-establish the legitimation of working abroad and to reformulate our cosmopolitan ambitions in ways that address the moral and artistic challenges of globalisation, the notion of translocality might be the appropriate term for this new ideal. With translocality, the local is rendered a new significance in a global context. What this significance entails specifically may differ from case to case, depending on how the locality is productively employed and how the activity is oriented on a place beyond the locality. Consider, for example, globally acknowledged art works with a strong connection to specific local areas; or consider cultural workers cooperating with both a local community and global partners; or artworks that are accessible for locals but are relevant to other parts of the world as well. In all these instances, it is the objective of translocality to position the locality in a global context and make visible how the world manifests itself in our local environments, while the

    We acutally live in a globalised world where internationalisation is not an ideality, but a reality
    Critical voices

    The repositioning of the nation state in Doorman’s narrative of translocality is the main source of both the term’s attractiveness (see e.g. Vanackeren 2019) and most of the ensuing critique. This controversy becomes particularly visible against the background of the current crisis caused by the coronavirus and was thoroughly discussed during DutchCulture’s colloquium.

    According to Doorman, the coronavirus is itself a manifestation of the translocal condition of our globalised world. The COVID-19 virus is without a doubt a global phenomenon, but in a manner that is indifferent to national or regional borders: it propagates globally, yet appears locally and is thus said to manifest itself translocally. The social and political response to this translocal virus, however, is characterised by Doorman as a ‘nationalist reflex’: the measurements taken are almost exclusively at the level of national governments, while international collaborative frameworks, such as the European Union or World Health Organisation, struggle to formulate a unified policy. From the strange images of scoreboards, comparing countries’ infection numbers, to the closing of national borders, in their quest for safety we see an intensification of protectionism and nationalist discourse in almost all (Western) countries, while the concerns of all nations around the world have hardly ever been so much the same.  

    We are thus confronted with a tension between national structures and a translocal reality. And we can recognise this tension very clearly in the art world: whereas a lot of artistic practices might be structured in the way Doorman describes as ‘translocal’, most of these activities and institutes still rely on national funding bodies. Hence, one could argue that while it is the ambition of translocality to liberate the organic propagation of the arts from the artificial borders of nation states, it is precisely the nation state that often provides the material conditions for such an ambition in the first place. 

    At DutchCulture’s colloquium, the unabated significance of the nation state was emphasised by Josef Früchtl, professor in philosophy of art and culture at the University of Amsterdam. According to Früchtl, the current crisis does not show us, as Doorman tends to portray the situation, an inappropriate nationalist reaction to the translocal virus, but rather a understandable necessity for national infrastructures and public health. Früchtl holds that the corona crisis proves the strength and inevitability of the nation state, also culturally and ideologically: the state represents autarky, or basic self-sufficiency. 

    Despite the persistent strength of the nation state, Früchtl acknowledges that the global is becoming more important. However, Früchtl prefers the term ‘glocal’ to describe the fading rigidity of the opposition local-global. Whereas the term ‘translocality’ first emphasises a locality that subsequently transcends its borders, Früchtl holds that the term ‘glocal’ rightly expresses the dialectical relation between the local and global, i.e. their mutual interdependence instead of their opposition (an opposition which Doorman, implicitly affirms by calling for the translocal bridging of the two opposites). 

    Interestingly, the director of translocal art space Nieuw Dakota, Tanja Karreman, disagreed with Früchtl’s preference for the term ‘glocal’, since ‘translocality’ expresses the deliberate effort to seek for global connections – connections that Früchtl prefers to emphasise as a reality already being in place (cf. also Hepp 2009). Accordingly, Karreman defines her own translocal ambition as ‘’the combined effort to engage with one’s local environment, while at the same time working with artists from all over the world.’’ 

    Annick Schramme, professor in international cultural policy at the University of Antwerp, likewise disagreed with Früchtl on the intensified role of the nation state, which she believes might apply to safety issues, yet not to the worldview of translocal artists. Schramme also disagreed with Früchtl’s preference for ‘the glocal’, since glocalisation stresses the influence of the globalisation on localities, while translocality should represent a more horizontal approach - a typification agreed upon by Doorman.  

    Another interesting point was raised by Geert Lovink, founding director of Institute of Network Cultures, who paraphrased Doorman’s notion of translocality as ‘’an attempt to escape from the critique on both the nation state and the globalisation’’. By this, Lovink means that, while the critique of globalisation tends us to revert to the nation state, and the critique of the nation state is often informed by cosmopolitanism, translocality promises a middle course in between both the unwholesome nationalism and rootless globalism. However, Lovink doubts whether a self-made identity like the translocal artist, can truly provide a sustainable and stable alternative within a capitalist world where such nomadic artists are precisely among the most precarious workers. Rather than forming the promising outcome of a crisis, Lovink holds that a crisis puts the translocal promise under pressure. And indeed, nomadic artists appear to have the least optimistic prospect of resuming their old practices soon. 

    Reacting on this practical point raised by Lovink, curator and artist Lara Staal remarked that we can respond to the precariousness of cultural workers, exactly by replacing the idea of the nomadic artist by a translocal approach that recognises the globality, which the nomad seeks by traveling, in the cultural diversity of the local environment. But this does require that we learn to continuously listen to the rich polyphony of cultural voices that are already present within our local surroundings. If translocality could be of use in responding to the challenges of globalisation mentioned above, then it does so by stimulating us to acknowledge the globality within the locality. 

    Opening of the Marseille area as European Cultural Capital: Cour Mirabeau, Aix-en-Provence, France, 2013
    To conclude: translocality as a question

    At the end of his lecture, Doorman formulated his conclusion as follows: 

    "Can we imagine a world in which migration, global changes and local roots co-exist, untroubled by once-upon-a-time borders and now-obsolete hierarchies?"

    It is not surprising that Doorman ends his talk on translocality in the arts with a question. For however promising the term translocality might be, what it actually signifies remains underdetermined. As used by Doorman, the concept seems to be a critical or negative notion: it first of all expresses what it is not: it is not taking part in the global world of art, not being directed towards a hegemonic centre, nor exclusively oriented on a local surrounding, while its positively formulated, concrete alternative – that which it actually is – remains an unresolved question. This indeterminacy not only applies to the term’s descriptive capacity, but just as well to its normative potential: even though the term raises plenty of important critical questions, it does not directly provide us with a concrete alternative to pursue.

    However, this indeterminacy does not mean that ‘translocality’ is a castle in the air and of no use for practically engaged cultural workers. Instead of treating it as a definite descriptive predicate or a distinct normative criterion that relies on assignable realities or concrete idealities, perhaps we should see ‘translocality’  as, indeed, an unresolved question. Translocality, then, refers to the attempt to answer the question whether something like translocality in the arts is possible, and is so,  what it could look like. Or, formulated more substantively, how can one transcend the limits of one’s locality without abandoning one’s connection to that locality, i.e. how to transcend borders without entering into a generic global world of art? Translocality is not a definitive answer to that question – a sort of gefundenes Fressen to be discovered in one or another article – but instead comprises that very question. And as such it discloses a whole universe of other highly relevant questions concerning the future of cultural internationalisation: for example, how to use the diverse and rich polyphony of one’s local history as a source of inspiration; how to stay connected with people around the globe while protecting climate and planet; how to make sure that one’s international endeavours are also intercultural exchanges; how to arrange a fair international cultural collaboration that does not reproduce the structural power differences that dominate our globalised world; and so on and so forth. 

    All these questions express the wish to not be pulverised by the increasing globalisation, nor to shut oneself off from globalisation, but instead to actively engage with globalisation’s possibilities by repositioning one’s artistic practice in a meaningful place that interacts with its social and cultural environment. An open understanding of translocality – indeterminate as a general theory, to be  concretised only through particular practices – therefore offers us a first orientation in responding to the challenges of globalisation. As a result, the corona krísis might encourage us to revitalise our international cultural passion with renewed solid legitimations that fit both current society and tomorrow’s world. Es ist Zeit, dass es Zeit wird.

    Translocal artists are oriented towards places beyond their locality without taking part in the generic global world of art



  • Open Call for FIAC 2020, Paris. Deadline 15 June

    Victor de Bie, member of the Atelier Néerlandais.

    Photo: Ferry van der Vliet

    Open Call for FIAC 2020, Paris. Deadline 15 June

    29 May 2020
    The Dutch Embassy in France has launched an open call for the Atelier Néerlandais during the Foire Internationale d'Art Contemporain 2020 in Paris.

    The Dutch Embassy in France has launched an open call for the Atelier Néerlandais (AN). The selected project will take place between 22 and 25 October 2020 during the Foire Internationale d'Art Contemporain (FIAC), the annual international fair for contemporary and modern visual arts. It is an opportunity for Dutch galleries, art and educational institutions to draw attention to contemporary visual arts from the Netherlands or elsewhere.

    What does the Embassy ask for?

    Before 15 June 2020, submit a brief plan for what should take place at the AN during this period, including draft budget. Proposals that are organised in collaboration with a French party are encouraged.

    What does the Embassy offer?

    The various rooms of the AN are available free of charge during the period of FIAC 2020. We will support the programme in terms of communication and social media and strive to get the exhibition in the side programming and communication of FIAC. Depending on the proposal and the budget, the Embassy can make a contribution to a maximum of €20,000 and 50% of the total budget of the proposal. The cultural department at the Dutch Embassy is responsible for the final selection of the programming at the AN. Art critic, curator and director for the visual arts of the Dutch Embassy in Paris, Nanda Janssen, participates as a jury member in the selection committee.

    It will be announced on 7 July 2020 which proposal can be realised during FIAC 2020 (see also text under COVID-19).

    About the Atelier Néerlandais

    The AN celebrated its sixth anniversary this summer and is an open, inviting space for Dutch artists and cultural institutions who want to gain an international position in the creative sector of France. Currently, the AN has more than 120 members from various cultural disciplines who use the AN as an exhibition space, debate space or workplace.


    The Dutch Embassy in Paris currently assumes that the activities may take place, but it is possible that the FIAC may be canceled due to the situation around COVID-19. It is also possible that the AN will have limitations or that due to current events the Embassy may even be forced to call off its own activities around FIAC. The Embassy is keeping a close eye on developments to be able to inform everyone. It is wise to take into account the future 1-meter society (in France) in the plans to be developed.

    Questions and submitting proposals

    For questions and submitting proposals, please contact Nicolette Koopman, Cultural Attaché at the Dutch Embassy in Paris: Find more information about the open call on Nederland wereldwijd (Dutch).

    Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Paris
    Atelier Néerlandais
  • Art in Times of Corona: Dutch children’s books presented on video

    Illustration from the book ‘Zeb.’ by Joren Joshua. Author: Gideon Samson

    Photo: Joren Joshua

    Art in Times of Corona: Dutch children’s books presented on video

    28 May 2020
    Due to a cancelled book fair, the Dutch Foundation for Literature collected video clips from Dutch children’s books authors and illustrators.

    For the annual Children’s Book Fair in Bologna – the most important international book fair for children’s books – the Dutch Foundation for Literature usually provides a brochure with a selection of titles they recommend to foreign publishers. As the fair was cancelled this year due to the corona crisis, they wanted to come up with a different way to get the publishers' attention for these books. Instead of simply sending a pdf-file of this year’s brochure, Agnes Vogt, head of the foundation’s international department, came up with a better idea. She asked the writers and illustrators of the books to make a one-minute video in which they present their book. Vogt explains: “For a foreign publisher, this is essentially the most informative: to hear from the makers themselves what they have to say about their work.”

    Philip Hopman - De boom met het oor

    The idea resulted in a series of short videos from a range of different Dutch authors and illustrators. The reactions have been overwhelmingly positive. “We got responses from Chinese, German and French publishers,” says Vogt. While the series is predominantly intended for publishers to get acquainted with the books, the videos are absolutely worth watching for those who wish to get a glimpse of some of the best Dutch authors and illustrators. Among those are Gideon Samson (Zeb.), Milja Praagman (I want a horse), Edward van de Vendel (Miss Unicorn), Tonke Dragt (Eye of the tigers), and Bette Westera and Sylvia Weve (Breaking up).

    For a foreign publisher, this is essentially the most informative: to hear from the makers themselves what they have to say about their work

    The Dutch Foundation for Literature supports writers, translators, and publishers in a book world that is changing rapidly. It draws attention to Dutch literature abroad and to foreign literature in the Netherlands. The work of the foundation contributes to the quality of literature written in Dutch and the diversity of literature available to readers and helps to make the Dutch literary world truly international. 

    Dutch Foundation For Literature
    Bologna Children's Book Fair
  • Maarten Doorman on Translocality in the Arts

    Graffiti at NDSM Werf, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Photo: Alf van Beem - own work / Wikimedia Commons

    Maarten Doorman on Translocality in the Arts

    26 May 2020
    Maarten Doorman’s compelling keynote speech during DutchCulture's colloquium on translocality in the arts.

    What does it mean to work internationally as an artist anno 2020? Are the traditional categories, such as ‘international’ and ‘cosmopolitan’, still sufficient to both describe the ambitions of artists and cultural workers, and address the challenges of working in a globalised world? In order to reflect on the conditions and effects of cultural collaboration, DutchCulture explores in a series of colloquia relevant new research in the field of cultural internationalisation.

    On April 30, DutchCulture organised the first in this series, a colloquium on tranlocality in the arts, during which prof. dr. Maarten Doorman (Maastricht University / VU Amsterdam) gave the following keynote speech on how the arts can be both globally oriented and locally embedded.


    The position and the developments in the arts of the early 21st century might actually tell us something about how people worldwide are tackling coronavirus
    Translocality and the Coronavirus

    DutchCulture’s programme for March 2020 included a symposium on translocality in the arts. However, given all the measures relating to the progressive corona outbreak, it soon became clear that this symposium had to be cancelled. This also caused the organisers, and me included, to wonder whether it was at all suitable to conduct this debate at a time when not just the arts but our entire culture was being shaken to the core. Do we not have bigger things to worry about just now? Would it not be perverse to devote our time and attention to exploring a notion like translocality?

    I don’t think so. For the position and the developments in the arts of the early 21st century might actually tell us something about how people worldwide are tackling coronavirus; while, conversely, the current events could help us gain a better understanding of the art world. We have seen the virus rapidly spread around the world to become a truly global phenomenon. At the same time, the response to this worldwide plague has barely been coordinated at that level. Rather surprisingly, the efforts of health care and politics to tackle the disease have mainly been conducted at the national level. As Frank Snowden, medical historian at Yale University, recently pointed out: “It is an illusion that national borders mean anything at all in a globalised medical environment” (Volkskrant, April 17). Whereas outbreaks in Europe were primarily local (parts of Lombardy, the Dutch province of Brabant, or the German municipality of Gangelt just across the Dutch border), the response was mainly framed within a national context. In the current situation of grave anxiety and gut reactions, the national dimension turns out to be much more important than previously assumed. Compare this, for example, to the WHO’s current weakness and lack of authority, and the absence of any medical-social policy by the EU, and their highly inadequate and problematic monetary reactions. Of course we can also point to exceptions such as Germany’s decentral approach, in which the federal states pursue a more autonomous course. But all in all it’s fair to say that the phenomenon of the crisis was both local and global, while the response has been a national one.

    The notion of translocality is a critical concept that questions the notion of the national, and consequently also of the inter-national, which after all refers to the collaboration and exchange that nation-based entities engage in. Research by epidemiologists, virologists and other medical professionals is organised at a global level but not internationally (although it is often referred to that way), and is embedded in both local scientific practices (laboratories, scientific institutes) and global practices, e.g. journals and online platforms. The financing of these efforts is mainly organised at the national level, however. And it is precisely in this discrepancy between national structures and non-national, translocal phenomena that we see a striking and, with a view to today, important parallel with the world of the arts.

    MOCA, The Museum of Comtemprary Art, Los Angeles, U.S.A,
    A European in Los Angeles

    This parallel phenomenon was the subject of an essay I wrote last year at the invitation of Nieuw Dakota, which you can find on the internet and of which I shall make extensive use now. It starts with my visit to Los Angeles two years ago, where a combination of European prejudice and personal curiosity prompted me to stroll around downtown to visit a series of nearby museums. Just going around the centre of town (if LA can even be said to have a centre) on foot is rather unusual, however, since everyone only moves around in cars. Aside from lots of homeless people and one or two other disoriented tourists, I did not encounter a soul. But I did find seven museums within a two-kilometre block, and I visited each one.

    That sounds like more than it turned out to be, however. In Olvera Street, a tourist lane lined with market stalls, I visited the city’s oldest house, the Avila Adobe; not a very remarkable building for a European. The United Methodist Museum of Social Justice consisted of one small room with a few works of art full of social indignation, such as a cartoon-like image of a capitalist in a red sleigh riding over poor land labourers. On the opposite side of the spectrum was the famous Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA), with its annex just further along, The Geffen Contemporary. And then there was the Broad Collection, with works by superstars such as Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol and Jeff Koons. Here it was necessary to queue for a ticket, but at the small Chinese American Museum, devoted to showing that people of Chinese descent make good Americans too, I was the only visitor. I was also a lone visitor in the equally small Japanese American National Museum, which admitted that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor ‘out of the blue’, but that there were noble heroes among them, too.

    Altogether it was a bit of a hodgepodge, with barely any role for art in the latter two museums, or in the Avila Adobe. Still, all these museums did represent an idea. They were there, not so much to display beautiful objects but to tell a story. And a story that was often embedded locally. Thus, as a historical site the Avila Adobe did contribute to the rather soulless identity of Los Angeles; the Museum of Social Justice tried, as a local community, to address inequality; the Broads sought to let others share in their staggering wealth by making their collection accessible for ‘the widest possible audience’. And the two small museums aimed to elicit empathy for the Chinese and Japanese minorities in the city. Only the Museum of Contemporary Art and its annex did not explicitly relate to their direct environment.

    The western perspective on art is no longer a matter of course, and the notion of a single world-spanning hierarchy is fading
    The Global World of Art

    We are inclined to see museums or other spaces devoted to art as elaborate showcases (and theatres as pure entertainment), forgetting that such institutions have always existed in order to express a certain idea or aspiration. Europe’s major museums are no exception: they were created to demonstrate the greatness of the nation and to infuse that nation with a sense of identity, based on a romantic cultural-political ideal. See the Prado in Madrid, London’s National Gallery, or Amsterdam’s Rijksmuseum. But the same applies to the countless smaller museums that spent the past two hundred years collecting and displaying arts and artefacts, in an effort to furnish not just the national but often also the regional or city culture with an identity of its own.

    In all these cases, what mattered was the relationship to a certain place: a country, a region, a city. This place was not just topographically defined, however, because what really mattered of course was the community of people living there. And as I walked around downtown LA, it struck me that this continued to apply for the museums and quasi-museums I visited there. The exceptions were the MOCA and its annex, and perhaps The Broad Collection, since those institutes were rooted in the cosmopolitan traditions of modernism and the international avant-garde. And the local is not of much interest in the cosmopolitan tradition.

    Of course I saw many American artists there, but these are found just as well in Europe and elsewhere: Koons, Warhol, Rothko, Ellsworth Kelly. These artists are part of the ‘global world of art’ and are not exhibited there on account of their American origin. The first sentence of MOCA’s mission statement is: ‘We are contemporary.’ This is followed directly by the bold statement that the museum owns ‘one of the most compelling collections of contemporary art in the world.’ It’s about art from a worldwide perspective, ordered according to a global hierarchy as determined by prominent museums such as the MoMA and the MOCA itself, and by Centre Pompidou, MOCA Shanghai, the Tate Modern, and by the international art trade in cities like London, New York, Hong Kong, Basel, Miami, Dubai, Paris, Mexico City and New Delhi.

    Treating the world of art as a kind of global Champions League, where the astronomical sums paid at auctions by the superrich have become the ultimate measure for what a work of art is worth, increasingly repels both artists and art lovers. And not just on account of the romantic notion that the value of art and of money are completely at odds with each other. It is also because this type of globalised art may well be termed contemporary, but that it is without any societal context, or cultural significance, or engagement with a specific audience, but simply floats around in the vain world of celebrities, media hypes, and speculative investment capital.

    Colloquium on Translocality with Maarten Doorman. Photo: DutchCulture
    Local Counterreaction

    Such trends were criticised previously, in the 1980s. It started with the punk rebellion against institutions and the market, with the ‘do it yourself’ generation. It also occurred outside the world of art, in the squatters’ movement, with freedom-minded youngsters determined to live a life outside mainstream society; either because society had no place for them, or they did not aspire to be part of bourgeois consumer society. It was a period in which various artists’ initiatives emerged, both in the Netherlands and elsewhere. Artists and theatre makers moved into vacant, often industrial buildings, where they created and presented work to the public with the least possible interference by the market and established institutions. These initiatives were often combined, legally or not, with cafés, alternative restaurants, dance halls and business ventures. Unlike today, these business ventures often had an ideological background, ranging from social legal support and yoga lessons to used clothing stores. Some artists outgrew this world and were absorbed into the traditional art circles and the market through galleries; others did not achieve this or did not aspire to.

    Such artists’ initiatives emerged in many different countries, and they sometimes maintained active relations among each other; but it was a time before the internet and the social media. There was an international art world thanks to the market, but this market concentrated only on the traditional art circles. This would change toward the end of the 1990s due to an accelerating globalisation. Information exchange and human mobility were hugely boosted by the internet, a well-developed travel industry, and cheap kerosene.

    The translocal has emancipated the local and has undermined the notion of a leading centre

    When we look back on these developments now, we can recognise a growing split. On the one hand, the majority of artists who would never manage to connect to an art world in a hierarchically ordered, global perspective, and whose attempts to position themselves in an international world would only deliver frustration, no matter how good their work actually was. This included the local self-organising and self-sufficient artists’ initiatives that rarely if ever ventured beyond their own environment. And on the other hand we see global art, art in a worldwide economy of art fairs, large galleries, prominent museums, hugely wealthy collectors, and renowned auction houses such as Christie’s and Sotheby’s. This art was and is hierarchically ordered by the market: the higher the price, the better.

    The tension between these two poles changed with the advent of the internet and the increasing movement of people across the globe. Now that everything is connected to everything, social networks span the world and cultures are increasingly blended together through migration, study and business travel, and through tourism and refugees flows, the dynamism between local and global art has changed as well. The notion of a centre is disappearing at the global level. Besides the ‘old’ Euro-American art centres, new centres are emerging in the Middle East, Asia and South America. Art historian and curator Jamila Adeli signals ‘an era of contemporary art that transcends not only territories and forms new central hubs, but initiates a paradigm shift towards a post-hegemonial, post-ethnic and post-Western notion of global art.’

    Of course we cannot see into the future, so what this change will look like remains unclear. However, it does seem certain that what ‘art’ means globally is indeed subject to such a shift in values and perspectives. The western perspective on art is no longer a matter of course, and the notion of a single world-spanning hierarchy is fading.

    Maarten Doorman

    At the same time, all sorts of new and local art initiatives and networks started emerging around the globe from the late 1990s on. The question is how to position these developments within this new world, which is where the new notion of ‘translocality’ comes in. The translocal is embedded in the local (landscape or community, hence a place-based ‘thing’ or ‘person’), but the local only becomes significant within a global context, with the notion of the nation receding into the background. As a comparison, consider refugees from sub-Saharan Africa. Their point of departure is not a country but a village or a region, and their destination is not a country but is a safe place where they have contacts to help them survive. This place could be Europe, but it could just as well be another continent like North America or Australia; this does not matter to them, fundamentally. There is a place of origin and departure, and there will hopefully be a place of arrival where a better life awaits; the rest is space in between, and borders, corridors, blockades, problems, dangers.

    It is essentially the same for global capitalism. Clothing is designed in Paris, exhibited in Milan, manufactured in Bangladesh, and worn in countless cities around the globe. Car parts are made in China and South Korea, are assembled in Germany, and the resulting car can be found on any continent. But what makes translocal art different is that it attempts to give meaning to the place where it is made and is exhibited. Translocal art tries to make these elements artistically productive by seeking to connect to landscape and community and in that sense completely opposite to global neoliberalism

    In the aforementioned essay I discuss examples of Dutch art venues that are engaged in that attempt; for example Nieuw Dakota (Amsterdam), KiK (Kolderveen), A Tale of a Tub (Rotterdam), Kunstvereniging Diepenheim, the Translocal Institute for Contemporary Art (Budapest), the Neuer Aachener Kunstverein, Laboratoires d’Aubervilliers (Paris), 3331 Arts Chiyoda (Tokyo), and A4 (Chengdu). Ideally, the translocal is no longer found in the traditional cultural contexts described in policy documents or within the usual type of public funding framework; so it is no longer regional, provincial, municipal or national. Translocal initiatives are furthermore distinct from the artists’ initiatives from the 1980s and 90s in that the point is no longer or much more than the artists’ self-sufficiency. Those initiatives were often locally embedded from the start, for instance in squatted buildings and derelict industrial premises in neighbourhoods and regions, but the worldwide global community we know today did not exist at the time.

    The local aspect refers to a connection with the location in a physical and social sense, on the one hand -- so with both the natural and urban environment (river, park, port or industry building, residential suburb) -- and to a connection with the people who live there, who work or once worked there, so with the history of the location, on the other. Put briefly: it’s about the connection with both the landscape and the community. The local should be seen as a connecting hub; it is not a centre and also does not position itself in relation to a centre, nor to the national. That is why the local character of translocal art venues has shed the association of being peripheral or pathetic, as implied in denigrating descriptions like ‘provincial’. The translocal has emancipated the local and has undermined the notion of a leading centre, or a number of leading centres surrounded by what is then considered peripheral by definition.

    The translocal is global and operates in our mediatised world without the associated homogenisation seen in clothing (the ripped jeans) or in food (the hamburger) or in technology (the iPhone). Within the global context, the translocal is aware of worldwide mobility as manifested in large-scale migration and the increasing diversity as a result. This diversity is the starting point, a source of inspiration, and a source of material for translocality in art. This approach sees the rich polyphony of a colonial past, a local history, and the stories of new migrants from across the world as fertile ground for artists.

    the local is not of much interest in the cosmopolitan tradition
    To conclude: a bridge between nowhere and everywhere

    The dazed tourist in downtown Los Angeles is just as global as the local homeless people. The tourist is everywhere, the homeless are nowhere. Just as the art of the MOCA and the Broad Collection is everywhere, while the art in the Museum of Social Justice goes unseen and unheard, and hence is nowhere. Can art in a translocal perspective bridge that gap? Can we imagine a world in which migration, global changes and local roots co-exist, untroubled by once-upon-a-time borders and now-obsolete hierarchies? I believe that this is what art in a translocal perspective is after; a quest that is all about the critical and political interrogation of national borders, their disappearance and new articulations of those borders. It is a development that goes hand in hand with the changing position and role of the arts, in many concrete places worldwide.

    Maarten Doorman is a writer, a philosophy lecturer at Maastricht University, and Endowed Professor of Historical Culture of Germany at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Some of his relevant books are Progress in Art (2003), De romantische orde (2004), De navel van Daphne. Over kunst en engagement (2016) and Dichtbij en ver weg. Opstellen over Kunst, filosofie en literatuur (2018).

    Much of this lecture is based on an essay Doorman wrote for Nieuw Dakota. 

    The next colloquium will take place June 24, featuring Ginna Brock on cosmopolitanism in the arts. A link to the event will be provided shortly.