Manifesto European House for Culture

bericht geplaatst op 26 december 2025

The Artist as Citizen: Towards a Cultural Pact for Europe

Under the motto ‘The Artist as Citizen’, the European House for Culture (EHfC) affirms that culture and the artist are essential pillars of the European project, standing beside its economic, political, and social structures. Artists and cultural professionals are not peripheral actors but crucial agents who sustain civic participation, strengthen democratic values, and articulate a shared European identity. EHfC calls upon political leadership at all levels to support and embed culture within Europe’s societal and policy frameworks, as culture is indispensable in generating belonging, social cohesion, and civic engagement.

Today, Europe faces intensified polarization, nationalism, and democratic fatigue. In this context, EHfC asserts that culture is never neutral: it remains a strategic force in defending civic values and enabling dialogue across differences. Culture must therefore be recognized not merely as a creative industry or as a commodity but as a cornerstone of democratic life. Art is political, not in the service of parties, but in the service of citizens. Cultural organisations, too, are not passive spaces; they are sites of imagination and possibility, shaping collective responsibility and democratic resilience.

I. The Artist as Political Agent

Artists have the capacity to engage directly with the urgencies of our time —inclusion, migration, nationalism, identity, climate justice, the overestimation of the role of technology and digital transformation— turning awareness into civic imagination. EHfC demands recognition for artists as active contributors to Europe’s future. Political and civic leaders must ensure that all governance levels —local, national, and European— integrate a cultural dimension in policymaking, in line with Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. A unified European framework and equitable funding structure should reflect the cultural sector’s potential and responsibility in promoting civic participation.

II. The Artist Drives Active Citizenship

The artist’s role extends far beyond being a recipient of cultural policy; artists are active shapers of democratic life. Through creative practices, they inspire civic responsibility, stimulate reflection, and mobilize action. They create spaces of dialogue and solidarity that bind communities together. EHfC underscores the need for artists to be formally recognized as civic drivers — catalysts of participation and renewal across Europe’s social fabric.

III. Independence Is Responsibility

Artistic freedom is not a privilege; it is a duty. True autonomy demands urgency and purpose. Artists must respond to social realities and exercise their independence as a form of civic accountability. To lead, question, and create from necessity constitutes the ethical dimension of artistic responsibility — ensuring that freedom serves public imagination rather than private isolation.

IV. Art Must Be Connected to Society

Rejecting the isolation of both the white cube and the black box, EHfC commits to linking artistic practice with social relevance and contextual engagement. By facilitating transnational, intersectoral and multidisciplinary collaboration through forums, research, and residencies, EHfC builds a system of shared learning. Cross-border exchange  —physical and digital— also beyond the cultural sector, transforms art from a solitary act into a networked act of mutual understanding. Art is a transformative force that can translate the most personal act of creation into a universal language that restores human dignity. Cultural cooperation is the foundation of a European sense of citizenship.

V. Claiming Visibility, Identity, and Advocacy

EHfC pledges to articulate and amplify the diverse identities, histories, and values present in Europe’s cultural field. Advocacy for policies reflecting the complexity of artistic labor is essential. Engagement and lobbying may at times be necessary but must never compromise artistic integrity. EHfC envisions a truly European cultural narrative that grows from the ground up —plural, inclusive, and open-ended— rather than imposed from above.

VI. A Pan-European Cultural Initiative

To advance this vision, EHfC launches a Europe-wide initiative designed to expand knowledge, engagement, and policy impact. The initiative will:

  • Conduct research and collect case studies illuminating art’s role in civic life.
  • Host public forums and develop educational programs connecting citizens, artists, and decision-makers.
  • Explore the potential of art in cultural diplomacy, that should unite organisations and markets under sustainability principles.
  • Engage the next generation in cultural participation through education, cultural heritage and Digital Innovation.
  • Support organisations and individuals ready to challenge structural, political, or cultural stagnation.
  • Align with the Sustainable Development Goals by embedding culture into long-term strategies for inclusion and cooperation.

In 2023, EHfC became part of Felix Meritis Connecting Cultures (FMCC), enhancing its mission to build synergies in European culture, improve artistic quality, and amplify cultural voices in policy debates.

The Artist as Citizen – Reimagining Europe’s Future: Cultural Engagement for a Democratic Europe

bericht geplaatst op 22 oktober 2025

A major conference empowering artists as shapers of Europe’s tomorrow. Three days of inspiration and debate.

This meeting, held 13–15 October 2025 and co-produced by Europäische Akademie Berlin and the European House for Culture with the support of Felix Meritis Connecting Cultures, is dedicated to empowering artists as active citizens and visionaries for a democratic Europe. When borders are challenged, the voices of art must rise, envisioning a democratic, resilient Europe together.

For the third time, thought leaders and practitioners from the European cultural scene gathered at the European Academy Berlin to discuss art, civic engagement, and democracy for the year 2025 and beyond. This event aimed to emphasize culture as a public good and empower artists as active citizens.

The European House for Culture (EHfC), under the motto ‘The Artist as Citizen’, champions the idea that artists and cultural professionals are fundamental to Europe’s democracy, identity, and societal health—not mere bystanders but vital contributors to civic participation and inclusion. EHfC urges policymakers to firmly embed culture at all governance levels, arguing that culture unites communities, sustains democracy, and fosters a shared European identity.

EHfC emphasizes that culture is never neutral: it acts as a force for defending civic values and dialogue in the face of polarization and democratic fatigue. Artistic and cultural activity should be recognized as essential to a resilient democratic life, with artists acknowledged as active shapers of civic imagination and societal progress.

The organization calls for fair funding, transnational collaboration, and policies that strengthen artists’ visibility, rights, and independence, asserting that artistic freedom is a civic responsibility, not just a privilege. EHfC argues for connecting art to social realities, rejecting institutional isolation, and fostering networks that enable mutual understanding across Europe. Ultimately, the EHfC advocates for a bottom-up, plural European cultural narrative rooted in dialogue, solidarity, and artistic integrity, where artists are recognized as leaders and catalysts of positive change.

https://www.eab-berlin.eu/the-artist-as-citizen-2025-kultur-als-buergerauftrag/

The programme and the list of participants can be found here:

251011 Program Artist as Citizen
2025 Artist as Citizen – biographies

The Transparency Conspiracy

bericht geplaatst op 21 augustus 2025

In 2012, the Edelman Trust Barometer recorded the largest-ever decline in trust towards government and related institutions since this globally renowned institute began conducting its surveys in 1999. Although a cautious improvement has been observed since then, governments worldwide are still perceived as significantly less ethical and competent than business and NGOs.

Ivan Krastev,1 the internationally renowned publicist, devoted a book to this topic, published in 2013: ‘In Mistrust We Trust, can democracy survive when we don’t trust our leaders?’ From the perspective of citizens in the democratic Netherlands, the answer is quite clear: a very large proportion of voters have lost all confidence in their government. In our country, too, the question is to what extent this poses a direct threat to democracy. How can the government regain trust?

Architect, artist, activist and parliamentarian Eliza Hoxha talks about her initiatives for the protection of the rights of victims of sexual abuse during the war in Kosovo (The Artist as Citizen – 2024)

During the low point in 2012, a proposal was made in the Netherlands for a “New Government Information (Public Access) Act”. The existing law, also known by its acronym “Wob”, did not provide for this, and moreover, the Netherlands had fallen behind internationally.2 Nevertheless, it took until 2022, when the trust curve in the Netherlands had already been showing a new and unprecedented sharp decline for a year, before the Open Government Act (Woo) was introduced.

‘The Woo should make it clearer what the government is doing and why,’ according to the national government. Note the word ‘clearer’: before 2022, openness was apparently not a priority in communication with citizens. It is encouraging that Dutch politicians have also realised that openness must be the first step. The Wob that was in force at the time gave government officials too much leeway to ignore or circumvent the provisions on disclosure, or to respond deliberately to the detriment of the person requesting information.

On the other hand, Krastev points out that nothing is as suspicious as the claim that there is complete transparency. Living in truth cannot be reduced to access to complete information. It is people’s willingness to take personal risks and confront those in power by daring to speak the truth, not the truth itself, that ultimately leads to change.

Armed with our experiences in Central and Eastern Europe with authoritarian regimes and the early exercises in democracy after the fall of the Iron Curtain, we have always focused on promoting active citizenship in all our activities, especially when it comes to practitioners of art, culture and science. Since 2023, these activities have been taking place under the motto “the Artist as Citizen”.3

Prof. Mario Neve, Department of Cultural Heritage, Ravenna, University of Bologna (The Artist as Citizen – 2024)

Those who cherish such ideals must, of course, set a good example themselves. As guardians and owners of the intangible heritage of the Felix Meritis Foundation (FMF), European Centre for Culture and Science, we are therefore seeking the considerations of the Amsterdam city government, at the time represented by Alderman Gehrels, to give up the protection of the interests of FMF, tenant and operator, in the sale of the Felix Meritis building to Amerborgh, with considerable prejudice to FMF, its partners, sponsors, networks, visitors, artists, guests, publicists and readers. In short, we ask the Amsterdam government to practise the openness required by law, but also by the need to maintain trust in democracy.

This does not seem to be so easy: between 2015 and 2019, we received no more than twenty documents in response to a Wob request, clearly the result of well-meaning disinterest on the part of a whole series of officials (the “pillar-to-post” method). During a public hearing on 2 May 2017, we were able to present our objections and doubts about the municipality’s openness, confident that, as promised by the chair of the objections committee, we would receive a decision on our objection within four weeks. Despite repeated requests for it to be sent to us, we have received nothing to date, eight years later. It is very remarkable that, according to the municipality, a decision on our objection cannot be found anywhere in the depths of the Waterlooplein.

After engaging an administrative lawyer in 2024, this example of trust-sapping behaviour by Amsterdam finally started to move, and in 2025, as part of a subsequent Woo procedure, we received no fewer than 514 documents. These documents do not show that Alderman Gehrels looked after the interests of FMF during the purchase and sale procedure of the Felix Meritis building in a manner prescribed by the code of conduct for mayors and aldermen. Nor is there any information about how the alderman separated the conflicting interests in her portfolios of Art and Culture, Economic Affairs, Business and Monuments; on the contrary.

We want definitive confirmation that there are no documents that have not yet been made public before we reach our final conclusions, which is why we have submitted another objection. The hearing on this matter will take place on 4 September 2025 at 10:00 a.m. We call on everyone who cares about open government, democracy and trust to be present at the town hall.

Your moral support means a great deal to us. We look forward to seeing you on 4 September at 10:00 a.m. at the town hall (Stopera), entrance Zwanenburgwal 1, Amsterdam. You can register at the reception desk.

Become a donor!

Support our activities with a personal donation and benefit from the tax advantage guaranteed by our ANBI status.

As an independent, unsubsidised foundation, we fund our activities through project grants, commissions, co-productions and, above all, private guarantees and donations.
We would like to thank the experts and staff who work selflessly and unpaid for our cause and who strengthen civil society through their active citizenship.
Our pursuit of an open society, a healthy democracy and a trustworthy government costs money. Please support us so that our work can continue.

You can transfer your donation to: Stichting Vrienden van Felix Meritis
IBAN: NL05RABO0143145290
BIC: RABONL2U

Donors of €75 or more will receive a copy of the illustrated anniversary publication ‘Geschiedenis van Felix Meritis. Spiegel van Amsterdam’ written by Loes Gompes & Merel Ligtelijn (350 pages).

  1. The Transparency Conspiracy by Ivan Krastev, Permanent Fellow of the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna, was published in 2012. Krastev has been a highly regarded guest speaker at FMF for many years. ↩︎
  2. “Making public information accessible is not a favour granted by the government, but a right of citizens that enables them to monitor the government, exercise fundamental rights and create economic and cultural value. These ideas about the usefulness and necessity of openness are not sufficiently reflected in current Dutch practice.”
    “The Netherlands has fallen behind countries that have recently adopted a freedom of information act or have made rapid progress in opening up government information for reuse, and has failed to learn from foreign experiences.” Parliamentary Papers II, 2011-2012, 33328 no. 3. ↩︎
  3. See, for example, the report of our last conference in Berlin. ↩︎

In Memoriam: Frans de Ruiter (1946 – 2025)

bericht geplaatst op 27 juli 2025

Felix Meritis Connecting Cultures (FMCC) deeply mourns the passing of our esteemed board member Frans de Ruiter on 16 July 2025.

Frans was a long-time collaborator of FMCC and the European House for Culture. His unwavering dedication to the role of art and culture in strengthening active citizenship across Europe has left a profound legacy.

With his deep understanding of Europe’s political and cultural dynamics, sharp intellect, wit, sensitivity, and boundless mental energy, Frans was an invaluable presence, not only to FMCC but also to our partners and friends throughout Europe.

We are grateful for his contribution and will dearly miss his wisdom, passion, and enduring commitment.

Freedom, Culture, Citizenship and the changing role of the Artist in the staccato society – A European Perspective: The Artist as Citizen

bericht geplaatst op 25 april 2025

Photo: Paul Spies taking the participants round Berlin Global

Following our first successful collaboration, FMCC, EHfC and the European Academy Berlin joined forces again last autumn to further explore the political responsibility of artists and cultural workers in shaping the future of Europe.

The Artist as Citizen 2024 Konferenz

Lees verder →

“The role of Arts and Culture in society should be seen as political”

bericht geplaatst op 22 oktober 2024

This sentence from the presentation of Dr Claartje Rasterhoff (Maastricht University) was the premise of last year’s first successful cooperation between the European Academy Berlin and FMCC/European House for Culture. In an informal conference format academics, artists, presenters & producers, government advisors and heritage specialists intensively exchanged views and practices on the instructive role of the artist and the presenting organisation as a driver of active citizenship.[1]

This is the main topic of several joint activities of FMCC and a multitude of partners from EU and accession countries, in 2024 and years to come, in close cooperation with the European Academy Berlin. The conference report of last years’ conference can be found here.

Our upcoming 2024 conference on ‘The Artist as Citizen’ will elaborate more on the political role of arts and culture.

The urgent questions to be analysed are:

  • What is the role and responsibility of artists and cultural professionals in the public sphere?
  • How do they contribute to European citizenship?
  • How can synergies in the cultural sector be strengthened in order to maximise political influence?
  • What tools can the EU and the Member States develop to integrate the ‘Artist as Citizen’ into their policy measures?
  • How can the sector’s contribution be made more visible and effectively considered in the decision-making process at local up to European level?

Artists, academics and cultural practitioners from Kosovo, Serbia, Italy, Poland, Spain, Georgia, Ukraine, Germany, Flanders and the Netherlands will exchange ideas and experiences on how to take responsibility in defending democracy and promoting citizenship education.

About these speakers:

Eliza Hoxha, architect/urban planner, pop singer, who raises awareness for the victims of sexual violence during the Kosovo war and gives a voice to the women who for years have been ignored and silenced.

Levan Khetaguri, Executive Council Member UNESCO International Theatre Institute; founder of the Silk Road Culture Hub in Georgia, aims to foster citizen engagement, community building, entrepreneurship and the spread of European values in a multi-ethnic region near the border with Armenia and Azerbaijan through culture (8,000-year-old wine heritage), tourism, monuments and artistic events.

Among other things, Dejan Ubović founded the ‘Museum of the 1990s’ in polarised Belgrade, an educational platform for young people who have little awareness of the tragic events of recent history and are extremely vulnerable to disinformation.

Weronika Czyżewska is international programme coordinator of Borderland Foundation, in the Suwalki corridor in northeast Poland, which developed a unique model for dialogue and bridge-building through culture between minorities with a ‘legacy of conflict’.

Paul Spies, as director of Stadtmuseum he  developed the innovative interactive exhibition Berlin Global. By involving international and marginalised Berlin communities this exhibition shows underrepresented perspectives on Berlin’s past and present.

Miguel Ángel Martín Ramos, Head of Brussels Delegation and European Affairs of the European and Ibero-American Academy of Yuste Foundation, promoting culture as a pillar for EU Integration. President of the Cooperation Network of Routes of Emperor Charles V. The European Routes of Emperor Charles V are a successful example of interaction between local communities, heritage sites and stories, tourism, citizenship education, small enterprises and (inter)national bodies.

Akudo-Kyoshia Mcgee-Osuagwu, Human Rights Focused Advocacy Officer, The Hague, received her PhD from Maastricht University with her thesis ‘When Norms Clash: How Polish Liberal Civil Society Contested Government Standards for the Rule of Law and Human Rights from 2015-2022’

Oleksandr Butsenko senior researcher of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts, international matchmaker, director of the Development Centre “Democracy through Culture”, counsellor of the Institute for Cultural Research, UNESCO global facilitator on intangible cultural heritage and an independent expert on cultural policies issues, literary translator, journalist.

Thanks to its director, Herman Tibosch, Museum Jan Cunen could take up an important role in local and regional awareness in heritage and identity matters reaching out to citizens in neighbourhoods who have no regular connection with museum visits. Tibosch has placed the museum collection in a fresh and inspiring local context appealing to feelings of belonging to all living in the community the museum is working in. More and more residents want to be included in shared initiatives and storytelling even in their houses.

Romy Heymans, Editor-in-Chief at Pakhuis de Zwijger, Amsterdam, producer of social, cultural and creative programmes, most of which focus on implicit citizenship education. It aims to further connect the various subgroups participating in these programmes.

Mario Neve, full professor of Geography at the Department of Cultural Heritage at Campus Ravenna, University of Bologna, addresses the relationship between maps, landscapes and identity, focussing, e.g., on the ability of landscapes to provide a shared, mutual ground trespassing the borders of European nations.

Oeds Westerhof, creative entrepreneur / writer / former director Leeuwarden Fryslân European Capital of Culture 2018 and gifted causative agent for repositioning cultural organisations by inspiring devoted employees.

Arent Boon is art historian and museologist, writer and researcher, independent analyst of existing museum practices.

Hugo de Greef, Culture entrepreneur, founder of a multitude of international European initiatives, mainly informal, in the field of performing arts production and writing. His latest initiative is De School van Gaasbeek, a Brussels platform for Creation and Residence of performing arts and music, where he aims to introduce The Artist as Citizen in the local situation.

Artist and philosopher Joseph Sassoon Semah explores whether European pluralistic society is reflected in art museums and in the ‘Canon of Modern Art’, and stresses the need for contextualisation of artworks in museums.

Linda Bouws, experienced artistic leader of international operating cultural entities, co-producer and programmer of international film and performing arts programmes, lately curator of the visual arts activities of Joseph Sassoon Semah, director and board member of Stichting Metropool International Art Projects and in that capacity one of the founders of the EHfC EEIG.

Steve Austen, entrepreneur in (higher) education, innovative (performing) arts organisations, festivals, advisory entities, writer, public speaker and University Lecturer.

Christian Johann is director of EAB, and member of various boards and advisory councils in the field of international encounter and political education. As an expert on the topics of European integration, international organisations, democracy and political education, he is a sought-after discussion partner for politicians and the press.

  1. [1] “Participation in civil society, community and/or political life, characterised by mutual respect and non-violence and in accordance with human rights and democracy.” (EU definition of Active Citizenship by Professor Bryony Hoskins, University of Roehampton, 2006) 

New Horizons: from the first Berlin Conference to the launching of the European House for Culture EEIG at EAB Berlin

bericht geplaatst op

Under the slogan: “A Soul for Europe”, a famous quote by Jacques Delors, which he gladly made available to the initiators, the first Berlin Conference for European Cultural Policy was held on 26 and 27 November 2004.

The name of the conference was somewhat misleading. The initiators were not concerned with discussing the cultural policy of the European Union, or the role of cultural policy in the various member states, nay, it was about defining the European unification process first and foremost as a cultural process.

Such a vision naturally has repercussions for the existing cultural policy of the member states and the Commission. If this view were to meet with the approval of European and national politicians, cultural policy would presumably no longer take place exclusively within the more or less cosy walls of culture ministries, but in all areas and at all levels of European and therefore national policy.

FMCC and its partner the European House for Culture, whose founders co-initiated the 2004 event, noted that the initial premise: “the European Unification process should be seen as a cultural process”, heavily supported by former EC president Barroso who was asked to open the conference, had also been heard by the European Commission, which at the 2017 Gothenburg Social Summit launched its motto: “Strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture”.

Both organisations and their partners will now give priority to the implementation of that motto in all their activities.

To foster effective cross-border cooperation, some partners from Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands will establish the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) ‘European House for Culture’ during the conference in Berlin comprising the European House for Culture, Metropool International Art Projects, Felix Meritis Connecting Cultures, Stichting Caucasus Foundation, De School van Gaasbeek and the Europäische Akademie Berlin.

José Manuel Durão Barroso and European culture, cultural policy and European citizenship

bericht geplaatst op

By Steve Austen, president of the European House for Culture and co-founder of the initiative A Soul for Europe.

On Monday 29 January 2007, I attended a remarkable event. The President of the European Commission José Manuel Durão Barroso had taken time off to debate with Daniel Barenboim during the “Brussels” lunch break, at the invitation of the initiators of the “Berliner Konferenz”, an informal group of convinced Europeans who believe that Europe should be seen above all as a cultural process and not exclusively as an economic and political project. This initiative found an unexpectedly strong and tenacious supporter in Barroso from his first public appearance.

Under the slogan: “A Soul for Europe”, a famous quote by Delors, the first Berlin Conference for European Cultural Policy was held on 26 and 27 November 2004. The name of the conference was somewhat misleading: the initiators were not concerned with discussing the cultural policy of the European Union, or even more generally, the role of cultural policy in the various member states, nay, it was, as mentioned, about defining the European unification process as such first and foremost as a cultural process.
Such a view naturally has repercussions for existing cultural policies of the member states and the Commission. If this view were to meet with the approval of politicians, at European and national level, cultural policy would presumably no longer take place exclusively within the more or less cosy walls of the culture ministries, but in all areas and at all levels of European and therefore national policy.

So, it is not surprising that initially the Berlin Conference’s aim to attract mainly politicians and decision-makers from outside the arts and culture sector was viewed somewhat strangely. The cultural sector was not ignored, but care was taken to ensure that the meeting did not degenerate into yet another oratio pro domo, as we are by now familiar with in the arts and culture sector: “art is important so there must be more money for it”. 
Whereas initially a maximum of 400 participants was expected, it ended up being 700, including an incredible number of government representatives and politicians from almost all old, new, and upcoming member states, as well as Russia and Albania, to name but a few. More than 100 writing and filming media were present, participants were interviewed, camera crews were running into each other.

“In the hierarchy of values, the cultural ones range above the economic ones”

Commission president José Manuel Barroso, Berlin, 26 November 2004

There, the brand-new boss of Europe spoke before the forum of European politics, business, culture and press about his ambition to pay explicit attention to the cultural component of the European unification process during his tenure. Of course, some scepticism is in order, especially when a politician barely a week after his appointment speaks fine words. Many thought Barroso had paid lip service to an idea of some respected European statesmen. But no, since his maiden speech on the subject, he has repeated his plea for intensive and direct Commission involvement in culture. In doing so, he was treading on thin ice.

He was well aware of this, as was demonstrated during an equally remarkable appearance on 4 December 2006 on the occasion of a “public hearing” for cultural organisations from all over Europe, organised by Jan Figel’s Directorate for Education and Culture. The hall in one of those dreary Brussels meeting factories was packed to capacity with some 400 representatives from and of the cultural sector, ripe and green mixed together.
Apparently, it had occurred to very few that the arrival of the President of the Commission is something extremely special. In the 25 years I had been following Brussels to some extent, I have never experienced this; indeed, even the presence of the Culture Commissioner at this kind of meeting with the field is highly unusual. Now no less than two of them were there! So there had to be something special going on here. It is just a pity that it was not noticed by those present. Yet there was every reason to: Barroso addressed the very limited room for manoeuvre the Commission has in the field of cultural policy. Barroso called for tackling the existing constraints and looking for innovative partnerships and pragmatic solutions. He even went so far as to propose drawing up a concrete agenda for culture, thereby distancing himself from the EU’s cultural policy to date. In Barroso’s view, culture and cultural policy will have to revolve around developing and fostering “European citizenship”.

From his first plea in December 2004, Barroso pushed the limits of the Maastricht Treaty in which the subsidiarity principle became guiding for EU interference in the cultural policies of member states. How relieved and happy European artists and cultural workers were when European governments meeting in Maastricht in 1991 decided to make an exception for cultural policy.
In the years before, the European institutions had worked in unison to obtain consensus for the creation of a common market for goods and services in which state aid in the form of subsidies to national companies and institutions would henceforth be prohibited. Not surprisingly, some were genuinely concerned that their national subsidy system would be eroded by applicants from other EU member states. After all, the open market would no longer tolerate protectionism. The prospect that Dutch artists would also have access to German and Belgian subsidies and vice versa could appeal to few, convinced as many in these and other countries were that after all, their home state had the most accessible and democratic subsidy system in the world.

While the Maastricht Treaty certainly led to greater security for artists and art institutions, it did also bring about an undesirable side effect. More and more member states began to regard domestic cultural policy as national policy. After all, culture was gradually becoming the only thing that still allowed member states to distinguish themselves from each other. Cross-border cultural cooperation was increasingly understood as national presentation abroad.

It is this tendency that ultimately opposes European unification, especially if it is to be understood as a cultural process. This inexorable logic cannot have escaped Barroso. In this, he was not entirely empty-handed: the Maastricht Treaty also offers opportunities to act alongside the untouchable art and culture policies of the member states. In particular, paragraph 4 of Article 151 of the Treaty (now article 167 TFEU) mandates the Commission to take into account the cultural component in all its actions to ensure Europe’s cultural diversity.

It was not until 2017 that the European Commission finally seemed to take this task really seriously. By choosing as the motto for its Social Summit in Gothenburg in November 2017: “Strengthening European identity through education and culture”, the Commission at least gave the impression of intending to give substance to the Maastricht provisions for a transnational and integrated cultural policy, and to bring the opportunities for artists and art institutions pursuing long-term cross-border cooperation with institutions and individuals abroad to at least the necessary level.

It remains to be seen whether the arts and culture sector is capable of holding its own in a truly European cultural debate. While certainly not entirely, but definitely partly, the increasingly nationalistic arts policies of member states are to blame for the low priority granted to transnational cooperation, not infrequently supported by local subsidy receivers.
Only strong action by the arts and culture sector itself, supported by the political class, can provide Barroso’s endeavour with any support. Artists and cultural institutions are part of civil society that will be increasingly called upon in the coming years.

This notion should lead to a mental shift among promotors of artistic and broader cultural action to leave their splendid isolation and invest in serious relations with informal and formal transnational networks of European citizens and citizens’ initiatives. After all, they are an important factor in the shaping of the democracy they are working in. Towards their audiences, they are, if they want it or not, implicit “citizenship educators”.

The initiators of the first Berlin Conference can be satisfied: their initial plea has been successful. They took up a new task: how to implement the motto of Gothenburg 2017 jointly with interested politicians, universities and social and cultural non-governmental bodies within the EU and accession countries.

Dismantling European Democracy from Within

bericht geplaatst op

Originally published on Verfassungsblog

By Jaap Hoeksma, 17 September 2024

The Patriots for Europe

Never in the history of the EU has a political party at Union level so ostentatiously misnamed itself as the Patriots for Europe. Their name suggests a passionate love for homeland Europe but their Manifesto reveals an unmistakable commitment to dismantle European democracy and to reduce the EU to an undemocratic organisation of illiberal states. Following the recent European Parliament elections, the Patriots for Europe has emerged as nothing less than the third largest political party. I explore the core elements of their illiberal political agenda as outlined in their Manifesto and discuss how their proposed sovereign policies, if implemented, could reverse the progressive trajectory of European (legal) integration.

Launching a new party

The genesis of the Patriots for Europe (PfE) amply demonstrates that its founding parties did not envisage to strengthen European democracy by expressing the will of the citizens of the Union as Article 10 (4) stipulates. Paradoxically, the party was not even formed before the 2024 elections for the European Parliament but rather after the citizens had cast their votes. While the EP-elections took place in the period between 6 and 9 June 2024, the founders of the PfE launched their party only on the 30 June. After the Rassemblement National from France and the Dutch PVV had joined the new parliamentary group, it became clear that the national far-right parties only combined forces at the European level to undermine European democracy from within. It should therefore be recalled at this juncture that this manner of forming political parties at Union level would not have been possible if the outdated electoral system of the EU, enacted in 1976 under the regime of the Communities, had not been carried over to the 2007 Lisbon Treaty (Article 223 TFEU).

Patriots for Europe

According to the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, the formation of a political group requires a minimum of 23 members originating from at least 7 Member States. Individual EP-members may participate in its functioning as NIs (non-inscribed). The creation of a political group in the EP brings many advantages, including procedural privileges and financial subsidies. The formation of a political group also requires a formal statement concerning its principles and goals, which has to be submitted to the EP-President and has to be underwritten by each group member. As the constituent parties succeeded in time to comply with the requirements for forming a political group, the PfE entered the European Parliament with 84 members as its third largest group.

The Manifesto

In all its brevity, the PfE Manifesto is crystal clear about the political ambitions of the “Patriots”. The two pages-document is based on the assumption that European integration, although commendable at the start, has turned against the countries and peoples of Europe. It argues that, today, institutions largely unknown to and removed from European citizens are planning to replace the Nations of Europe with a European central state. Subsequently, it identifies “the Centralists who herald a new European superstate” as the culprits and portrays the Patriots and Sovereigntists as the liberators of our time, determined to retake our institutions and to reorient “European policy to serve our Nations and our people” (singular). Thus, the political fault line in the European Parliament is no longer between conservatives and liberals but between federalists and sovereigntists. The Manifesto elaborates this central claim by formulating the following three political priorities: sovereignty or taking back control, diplomacy instead of democracy, and the principle of non-interference in internal affairs.

Taking back control

Sovereignty: The Manifesto’s doctrine is based upon the principle of the unrestricted sovereignty of the Nations of Europe. In line with the Westphalian system of international relations, states are perceived as the highest entities on the continent. They must be free in their determination to live and cooperate with each other. As the EU has come to dominate, if not subjugate, the free nations of Europe, they must reclaim sovereignty. In the literature, this approach is underpinned by political theorists arguing that the concept of democracy presupposes a people (demos) and a national state. As a leading republican intergovernmentalist, Bellamy argues that European democracy erodes the national democracies of EU Member States and that the nation-states must reclaim control for the sake of democracy. He criticizes Brexit for the way it has been implemented but endorses the decision in principle.

Diplomacy: As it is impossible for democracy to thrive beyond the borders of national states, the relations between these states should form the exclusive domain of diplomats. Consequently, EU Member States must retain their right of veto. Accordingly, the system of EU-democracy must be replaced with diplomacy. In a similar way as the advocates of the “Leave campaign” in the UK argued that the EU had become the reincarnation of the worst dictatorships in European history, the Manifesto identifies “Brussels” as the enemy. The only difference between the Brexiteers and the Patriots is that the former wanted to use the UK’s legal right to withdraw from the EU in line with article 50 TEU, whereas the latter intend to deconstruct the Union from within.

The principle of non-interference in internal affairs: The third focal point of the Patriot’s Manifesto reveals the hidden intention of its initiator Viktor Orbán. Together with his Polish counterpart, the Hungarian Prime Minister had used the same argument in their appeal to the CJEU concerning the introduction of the conditionality mechanism in the Recovery and Resilience Fund, created to overcome the negative effects of COVID-19 pandemic. They invoked the Westphalian principle of non-interference by a higher authority in the internal affairs of a sovereign state as a philosophical disguise for their intention to abolish the EU’s control over the expenditure of these funds. After the CJEU had rejected his claim, Orbán used the Manifesto of the Patriots for Europe to reintroduce this argument in the political arena.

In summary, the Manifesto presents an alternative to the European “super state”, which the EU allegedly has become. Its core ambition is to restore national sovereignty. A key element in the strategy for achieving this goal is the substitution of diplomacy for democracy. As the European Parliament is the main institution meddling into internal affairs of European states, notably with respect to illegal immigration and gender issues, replacing democracy with diplomacy forms the most effective strategy for guaranteeing the revival of the nations of Europe. Reflecting recent legal developments, notably the Conditionality Verdicts of the CJEU, the Manifesto adds that the EU should cease to justify its attacks on national sovereignty by applying pressure through the European budget.

A democratic union of democratic states

Seen in this perspective, the PfE appears to have a compelling case. The question that must be raised, however, is whether the enemy is real or imaginary? As the Patriots’ Manifesto demonstrates a solid trust in international treaties, it may be fruitful to investigate whether the Lisbon Treaty is indeed constructing the Union as a super state. Subsequently, if the EU is not (yet) a European central state, could the Treaties pave the way for the Union to establish itself as one sooner or later?

The answer is clearly no. Suggestions that institutions have hijacked the EU and are now turning it into a super state, are simply false. They overlook the fact that the Member States have given an entirely different dimension to their sustained integration efforts. The founding parties introduced the practice of sharing sovereignty and initiated the process of European integration as democratic states. They did not sacrifice democracy for the sake of integration but rather wanted their organisation to be democratic too. So, the Member States first agreed on their common democratic values and subsequently applied these values to their Union. The democratic principle driving the EU’s evolution is the following. If two or more democratic states share the exercise of sovereignty in ever wider fields with the view to attain common goals, their organisation must meet similar democratic standards as its Member States. The result of their sustained endeavour is that the Member States have created a new model of democracy. They have transformed a mere union of democratic states into “a union of democratic states which also constitutes a democracy of its own”.

Henceforth, the EU does not form a state let alone a “super state”. It is not a mere association of states either. Hence, the Union needs a new term to be identified with. In line with its genesis and competences, the EU can be described from the internal perspective of its citizens as a democratic union of democratic states, while it may be identified from the perspective of global governance as a democratic international organisation.

Undemocratic and illiberal

The Manifesto’s portrayal of the EU as a super state serves only as a pretext for the Patriots to attack European democracy. The ground for the present assault has been prepared by a global wave of democratic backsliding and constitutional erosion. Having been ruled by Orbán and his Fidesz party for over a decade, Hungary is no longer regarded as a democracy by the USA. According to its statutes, the Dutch constituent member party PVV consists of one man only. Wilders simply does not tolerate democratic decision making in his own party. As the member parties of the PfE do not respect democracy and the rule of law at home, they want to free themselves of these values in the context of the EU too. In political terms, one might argue that the goal of the PfE is to reverse the European Union from a democratic union of democratic states towards an undemocratic organisation of illiberal states.

Countering the attack

Besieged by the enemy from within, the other democratic parties in the European Parliament used the constitutive session of July 2024 for bridging their differences and forming a pro-European coalition. The Christian-Democrats, the Social-Democrats, the Liberals and the Greens agreed to lend their support to Commission President Von der Leyen on the one hand and to prevent the Patriots for Europe from occupying crucial parliamentary positions on the other hand. They need to protect the European democracy, especially after the Patriots’ alignment with Russia in its war against Ukraine. At the start of the Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the EU, PM Orbán even abused his temporary position for taking counterproductive diplomatic initiatives without authorisation by the other Member States or by the competent EU-institutions. While early critics pointed out that the Presidency of the Council of a democratic union of democratic states should not be entrusted to an illiberal autocrat in the first place, Orbán may have effectively strengthened the pro-European coalition against the PfE. However, it remains to be seen whether the spontaneously formed coalition will hold and whether it can be effective in the light of continuous efforts to paralyse the functioning of the European Parliament and that of the EU at large. Given the European Parliament’s ambitious objectives, there is no reason to believe that the Patriots will acquiesce to being sidelined after the constitutive week. The European Parliament should therefore brace itself for a prolonged period of intense political disagreements. Since the goals and ambitions of their Manifesto cannot be realized without treaty changes, and given their likely inability to secure majorities for their political initiatives, it is quite possible that they will resort to tactics of parliamentary obstruction.

Orban’s Patriots for Europe — worst name ever

bericht geplaatst op

By Jaap Hoeksma, September 2024

The name Patriots for Europe will easily go down in the history of the EU as the greatest misnomer ever. The name suggests an unlimited love for their home country Europe but its manifesto emphasises the national sovereignty of the nation-states on the continent. Moreover, the launch of the Patriots for Europe by Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán and two allies on the 30 June this year is the epitome of a false start.

The new party was formed after the elections for the European Parliament had been conducted in the member states at the start of that month. The sole aim of the foundation of the ‘Patriots’ was to strengthen the position of the populists parties from the separate member states in the European Parliament. Its purpose was not “to contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of the citizens of the Union” as article 10 (4) of the Lisbon Treaty has it, but to qualify for European subsidies. 

The ambiguous attitude of the ‘Patriots’ is highlighted by their linguistic laxity. As they claim to be the champions of the nations of Europe, the translation of their manifesto should have been an obvious priority. Actually, they could have been expected to outperform the EU’s commitment to multilingualism by ensuring the simultaneous translation of the manifesto in the vernacular languages of the constituent parties. The neutral observer could hardly be more disappointed. While two of the ‘Patriots’ member parties are Dutch-speaking, not one iota of the manifesto has been translated into the language of the Low Countries.

In good populist’s tradition, the PfE manifesto identifies an enemy. While it acknowledges that the process of European integration may have been initiated for noble reasons, it posits that ‘institutions’ have taken control and are planning to transform the EU into ‘a European central state’. As their aim is to subjugate the proud nations of Europe to an emerging empire, now is the time for the peoples of Europe to reclaim sovereignty and to take back control over their own destiny. 

Brussels’ cash machine

For this goal to be achieved, they should a) replace democracy with diplomacy and b) stop the EU from meddling into the internal affairs of its member states. While the two arguments are obviously correlated, the latter reveals Orbán’s real reasons for launching the ‘Patriots’ after the 2024 elections for the European Parliament. He is not driven by noble motives such as respect for the principles of international law but by more down to earth considerations. He simply wants to tap his money from the Brussels cash machine.

The Hungarian prime minister is pissed off by the EU decision to withhold money from the Recovery and Resilience Fund as long as his government does not respect the values of the EU. As his argument that the EU is not entitled to oversee the way in which his country is spending the subsidies received from Brussels because that would amount to unwarranted intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, has been rejected by the EU Court of Justice, he tries to get his money by changing the laws of the Union. 

In order to attain their prosaic goals the self-styled Patriots have to turn the current EU into a caricature. In reality, the European Union is neither a dictatorship nor an Empire or a Fourth Reich.

25 years Maastricht Treaty – Jaap Hoeksma presents his theory of European democracy
Photo: Harry Heuts

The EU has been founded by democratic countries on the European continent with the aim to prevent the renewed outbreak of war between them and to attain common economic and political objectives. Guided by their constitutional principles of respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, they wanted their organisation to function democratically too. Although it was said to be impossible by political theorists, they succeeded in overcoming the democratic deficit of the early stages of integration. In a prolonged period of trial and error, they created a new model of democracy. On the basis of the 2007 Lisbon Treaty, the EU can be described as a democratic union of democratic states.

An undemocratic organisation of illiberal states   

By portraying the EU deliberately as a ‘European central state’, the manifesto entitles and encourages its member parties and their voters to destroy the union from within. Unlike the Brexiteers who wanted the UK to leave the EU in line with article 50 TEU, the ‘Patriots’ aim to dismantle the EU and to abolish the European Parliament and the EU Court of Justice altogether. Just like Orbán prefers to describe himself as the leader of an ‘illiberal democracy’, the manifesto wants to reduce the current European democracy to an ‘undemocratic organisation of illiberal states’.

The upcoming legislature will have to prove whether the EU and its political parties are capable of beating off the attack from within. As a resilient democracy, it is obliged to defend itself in the interest of its citizens and its member states.

The role of Arts and Culture in society should be seen as political

bericht geplaatst op

Here we provide a brief summary of Dr Claartje Rasterhoff’s opening address at last year’s conference organised jointly with EAB in Berlin ‘Connecting Cultures: Empowering citizens – A conference on European cultural, political and citizenship education’.

In her keynote speech, Dr Rasterhoff addressed the question: How does the artist, the cultural institution and the interaction with the academic world contribute to citizenship education, the building of communities and the formation of social spaces?

She outlined how the cultural sector is increasingly focusing on social relevance, prompted on the one hand by major societal challenges, like polarisation, misinformation or climate crisis and on the other as a backlash against the decades-long economisation of cultural policy. But this shift comes with promises and sales pitches on the policy level such as: ‘The arts are an endless source of imagination and invention of new approaches to complex changes, they are a powerful mobilisation and awareness-raising tool.’

These narratives obscure the politicality of the art and heritage field. In its attempts to show that art matters to society, this solutionism fails to recognise that art does not exist outside of society. It also comes with tensions for cultural institutions, that have to undergo an institutional transition towards fostering active citizenship and democracy, strengthening their relationship with their communities.

To find out how practitioners and audiences experience and engage with arts and heritage, we need art-science collaborations. The gap between academic research and cultural practice hampers meaningful discussion on the role and impact of arts organisations and has to be bridged, and binaries like making/thinking must give way to non-binary modes of knowing and learning that can inform our understandings of the civic role and impact of arts and culture.

Michael Ignatieff - Opening Academisch jaar NIAZ, 4 september 2024

Michael Ignatieff – Opening Academisch Jaar NIAS, 4 september 2024 – Linda Bouws

bericht geplaatst op 07 september 2024

Michael Ignatieff was onze gast in Felix Meritis tijdens De Nacht van de Rechtsstaat in 2013.

“We moeten die banden met Israël niet verbreken; op Israëlische universiteiten is een grote academische vrijheid; academici en studenten zijn juist actief tegen de regering. We moeten die banden juist versterken, ook met de Palestijnse universiteiten die er nog zijn. Wij moeten in gesprek blijven.”

Michael Ignatieff (Toronto, 1947), de Canadese schrijver, oud-politicus, historicus en voormalig universiteitsbestuurder, gaf onlangs een gepassioneerde keynote speech over de toenemende druk op academische vrijheid wereldwijd tijdens een bijeenkomst georganiseerd door het Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study (NIAS) in de Waalse Kerk in Amsterdam. In een tijd waarin universiteiten steeds vaker het toneel zijn van politieke strijd en sociale polarisatie, roept Ignatieff op tot een hernieuwde inzet voor het behoud van academische waarden en de noodzaak om open te blijven staan voor dialoog, ook in complexe situaties zoals die in Israël en Gaza.

De Uitdaging van Academische Vrijheid

Academische vrijheid, volgens Ignatieff, ligt onder vuur in verschillende delen van de wereld. De onafhankelijke positie van academische instellingen wordt bedreigd door toenemende politieke druk, zowel van binnenuit als van buitenaf. Deze druk komt vaak tot uiting in conflicten rondom gevoelige onderwerpen zoals de oorlog tussen Israël en Gaza. Terwijl universiteiten zich moeten richten op hun kernmissie van onderzoek en onderwijs, worden zij steeds vaker gevraagd een politieke stelling in te nemen. Studenten wereldwijd eisen bijvoorbeeld dat universiteiten hun banden met Israël verbreken vanwege de situatie in Gaza. Ignatieff stelt echter dat het verbreken van banden juist averechts kan werken: “We moeten die banden met Israël niet verbreken; op Israëlische universiteiten is een grote academische vrijheid; academici en studenten zijn juist actief tegen de regering. We moeten die banden juist versterken, ook met de Palestijnse universiteiten die er nog zijn. Wij moeten in gesprek blijven.”

Israël en Gaza

De oorlog in Gaza fungeert als een katalysator die de bestaande spanningen op universiteiten wereldwijd verder aanwakkert. Ignatieff wijst erop dat terwijl de oorlog tussen Rusland en Oekraïne of de conflicten in Soedan minder aandacht krijgen, het Israëlisch-Palestijnse conflict voortdurend een bron van intense discussie en verdeeldheid vormt. Dit conflict verhevigt de oproepen  academische banden met Israël te verbreken en zet de academische gemeenschap onder druk om stelling te nemen.

Toch benadrukt Ignatieff het belang van academische vrijheid, die voor hem een essentiële pijler is van elke liberale democratie. “Academische vrijheid betekent dat academici en studenten de vrijheid moeten hebben om te lezen, te schrijven en te publiceren zonder censuur,” aldus Ignatieff. Hij wijst erop dat universiteiten niet moeten zwichten voor druk om eenzijdige politieke standpunten op te leggen, maar juist een ruimte moeten bieden waar diverse perspectieven kunnen worden onderzocht en besproken.

Politieke Druk en Het Belang van Pluriformiteit

Ignatieff waarschuwt dat zowel linkse als rechtse politieke bewegingen steeds vaker proberen invloed uit te oefenen op het universitaire discours. Rechtse populistische leiders zoals Viktor Orbán in Hongarije en Geert Wilders in Nederland gebruiken retoriek die academische vrijheid onder druk zet. Tegelijkertijd, zo stelt Ignatieff, zijn er interne krachten binnen universiteiten die soms de pluriformiteit van het debat bedreigen door de neiging om bepaalde opvattingen te marginaliseren. Ignatieff benadrukt dat het de taak is van universiteiten om deze pluriformiteit te beschermen. Universiteiten moeten ruimtes zijn waar open debat mogelijk is, waar verschillende standpunten gehoord en besproken kunnen worden in een veilige en inclusieve omgeving. “Academici hebben de verantwoordelijkheid om de situatie in Israël en Gaza uit te leggen, te onderzoeken, maar vooral niet dwingende opinies op te leggen,” zegt Ignatieff. Dit betekent dat ook standpunten die de Israëlische overheid of haar beleid steunen een plaats moeten hebben in het academische discours.

Spanningen in Amsterdam 

De discussie over academische vrijheid heeft een directe impact op de situatie in Amsterdam, waar studenten en faculteiten met spanning afwachten hoeveel bezettingen en protesten het nieuwe academische jaar 2024 zal brengen. De spanning loopt op, omdat men verwacht dat de intensiteit van de acties, vergelijkbaar met die van voorgaande jaren, heviger en mogelijk meer ontwrichtend zullen zijn. De oproepen tot het verbreken van banden met Israëlische instellingen zijn luid, maar er zijn ook tegenbewegingen die pleiten voor behoud van academische samenwerking en dialoog.

Academische Vrijheid als Fundament voor Dialoog

Michael Ignatieff’s pleidooi voor academische vrijheid is een oproep universiteiten te beschouwen als bolwerken van open debat en kritische reflectie, in plaats van als politieke slagvelden. In een wereld waar polarisatie steeds meer de overhand neemt, pleit Ignatieff voor het behoud van banden met zowel Israëlische als Palestijnse universiteiten als een manier om de dialoog te versterken en diverse stemmen te laten horen. Door in gesprek te blijven en een ruimte te creëren waar verschillende standpunten naast elkaar kunnen bestaan, kunnen universiteiten hun rol als beschermers van de academische vrijheid en de democratische waarden vervullen.

De uitdaging voor academische instellingen in de huidige tijd is hun onafhankelijkheid te behouden en tegelijkertijd een veilig en inclusief platform te bieden waar controversiële onderwerpen kunnen worden besproken. 

Boekpresentatie: Joseph Sassoon Semah: On Friendship / (Collateral Damage) V – Between Graveyard and Museum’s Sphere

bericht geplaatst op 06 augustus 2024
  • Datum: 23 oktober 2024
  • Tijd: 20.00 uur 
  • Locatie: Goethe-Institut Amsterdam, Herengracht 470

On Friendship / (Collateral Damage) V – Between Graveyard and Museum’s Sphere  is de vijfde en laatste editie van Joseph Sassoon Semah’s ‘Magnum Opus’. Het markeert de culminatie van een meerjarige kunstmanifestatie die begon in 2015. Samen met curator Linda Bouws heeft Joseph Sassoon Semah zich ingezet om de westerse kunstgeschiedenis te verrijken door haar ‘lege pagina’ te vullen met de rijke en diverse iconografie van de joodse cultuur.

Over de publicatie:

Joseph Sassoon Semah neemt ons mee op een wonderlijke verkenningsreis. Deze reis strekt zich uit van de Tempel van Salomo in Jeruzalem, via de verloren gewaande publieke ruimte (joods kwartier) van Bagdad, de wachtkamer van zijn Saba (grootvader) en het vernietigingskamp Auschwitz-Birkenau, naar de ruimtelijke architectuur gebaseerd op de typografie van de Talmud Bavli.

Sprekers, met o.a.:

  • Emile Schrijver, algemeen directeur Joods Cultureel Kwartier (inleiding),
  • Joseph Sassoon Semah
  • Rick Vercauteren, kunsthistoricus

Moderator: Linda Bouws

Speciale aanbieding:

Na afloop is de publicatie te koop voor de speciale prijs van €32,50 in plaats van €39,95.

Info:

  • Titel: Engelstalige publicatie: On Friendship / (Collateral Damage) V -Between Graveyard and Museum’s Sphere
  • Bijdragen van: Joseph Sassoon Semah, A.S. Bruckstein Çoruh / Huis van Taswir, Guus van Engelshoven, Arie Hartog, Gideon Ofrat, Steve Austen, Linda Bouws, Lisette Pelsers, Jom Semah, David Sperber en Rick Vercauteren.
  • Metropool Internationale Kunstprojecten

Final editing: Linda Bouws & Joseph Sassoon Semah

Design + layout: KUNSTBURO geert schriever

A4, 208 pag, full colour

Deze publicatie is uitgebracht ter gelegenheid van de tentoonstelling On Friendship / (Collateral Damage) V – Between Graveyard and Museum’s Sphere (3 februari – 30 juni 2024, Het Nieuwe Domein, Sittard), curator Guus van Engelshoven.

Joseph Sassoon Semah: On Friendship / (Collateral Damage) V – Between Graveyard and Museum’s Sphere

bericht geplaatst op

In October 2024 will be published:

Joseph Sassoon Semah: On Friendship / (Collateral Damage) V  – Between Graveyard and Museum’s Sphere.

At first glance, a graveyard and a museum space seem to have little in common. Yet they both give meaning to the artworks presented by Joseph Sassoon Semah (Baghdad, 1948) in the exhibition Between Graveyard and Museum’s Sphere. Sassoon Semah takes the visitor on a wondrous journey of exploration. This journey extends from the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, through the lost public space of Baghdad, the waiting room of his Saba (grandfather) and the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp, to spatial architecture based on the typography of the Talmud Bavli.

With much art and texts by Joseph Sassoon Semah, Steve Austen, Linda Bouws, A.S. Bruckstein Çoruh / House of Taswir, Guus van Engelshoven, Arie Hartog, Gideon Ofrat, Jom Semah, David Sperber and Rick Vercauteren.

Metropool Internationale Kunstprojecten
Final editing: Linda Bouws & Joseph Sassoon Semah
Design + layout: kunstburo geert schriever
A4, 208 pages
Full color
ISBN 9789090385884

The publication can now be pre-ordered:
€ 39.95 and € 5 shipping costs:
Stichting Metropool Internationale Kunstprojecten, account number NL 42 INGB 0006 9281 68 stating On Friendship / (Collateral Damage) V, name and address.

Freedom, Culture, Citizenship and the changing role of the Artist in the staccato society – A European Perspective: The Artist as Citizen

bericht geplaatst op 04 augustus 2024

Berlin, 30 October – 1 November 2024

This conference, organised by the European House for Culture, Felix Meritis Connecting Cultures and the European Academy Berlin will address the role of the artist as a driver of active citizenship.1

Culture and the arts are fundamental to society and play a central role in the process of European integration. Their contribution needs to be given greater visibility and the sector should have more weight in the European decision-making process. More and more artistic, cultural and educational initiatives should be placed at the centre of the debate on strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture.

The conference will bring together people from different areas who do not normally have the opportunity to meet in order to promote the exchange of ideas and cooperation. The artists, curators, directors, journalists and policy makers invited to this year’s conference will present suggestions to up-speed this necessary European civic process and pool their efforts as partners for the future.

Important questions to be analysed in Berlin:

  • What is the role and responsibility of artists and cultural professionals in the public sphere?
  • How do they contribute to European citizenship?
  • How can synergies in the cultural sector be strengthened in order to maximise political influence?
  • What tools can the EU develop to integrate the ‘artist as citizen’ into programmes?
  • How can the visibility of the cultural sector’s contribution be increased?

This conference builds on a successful previous joint event in autumn 2023: Connecting Cultures: Empowering Citizens

Conference venue: Europäische Akademie Berlin, Bismarckallee 46/48, 14193 Berlin

  1. “Participation in civil society, community and/or political life, characterised by mutual respect and non-violence and in accordance with human rights and democracy.” (EU definition of Active Citizenship by Professor Bryony Hoskins, University of Roehampton, 2006) ↩︎