 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Terrakota gudaria begibistan
nuenean “klik”! Iñuxente asko... ez bait
nekien zertan nenbilen, baina laster ohartuko nintzen, alajaina.
Bilbaoko Guggenheimen nengoen, eta zaindari gaztea zakurra baina
zakarrago etorri zitzaidan, “zertan zabiltza baina...
argazkia egitea okurritu ere ez!” Marruka.
“Ño”
nire artean... normala... argazki kamera haraino sartzea ere
burutik nola pasa zitzaidan hasi nintzen neure buruarekin peskizan.
Ez bai nien sarrerako kartelei erreparatu... ez bai nintzen
postal eta hormairudiak saltzeko Guggenmeim-Bilbao.ren premiaz
ohartu... “Merchandising”a ordea, kultur ondare
txit unibertsaleko pitxien .. Txinako Terrakota Gudariekin ari
ziren egiten...
“BENETAKO KONTUA EZ BAITA DIRUA”
izeneko editorialean, 2005.eko udaberrian halaxe dio Norfolk
(Virginia)ko Chrisler arte museoko zuzendari WJ Henneseyk:
Azken urteotan arte komunitatean irudipen bat nagusitu da:
Diruz babesten dituzten korporazio eta gobernu agentziei benetan
inporta zaiena ‘inpaktu ekonomikoa’ dela.
(...)
Teoria horrek zera ematen du aditzera: emaleek estatistika harrigarriak
ikusten dituztenean berehala ulertzen dutela artea inbertsio
ona dela... beraz segituan ematen dutela aurrerapausoa, hain
premiazkoa den dirulaguntza ekarriz.
(...)
Arte erakundeok ere ez al genuke bada hobe jendearen bizi-kalitateari
nolako aldea damaiogun azpimarratzea? Chrysler museoan horretarako
ari gara, lagunarte eta sendien bilgune gisa; mundua eta nork
bere burua deskubritzeko moduko leku gisa”.
Bost milioi dolarretik gorako aurrekontua duen museo pribatua
da hori. Akaso diru-arazorik ez duenak egin dezake gisako gogoeta.
Baina idazki horrek atentzioa eman dit, zergatik? Nondik eta
AEBetako super-korporazio baten “obra sozialetik”
datorrelako... “gugandik hain urrun, 40 urtez aurreratuta
dauden haien” joerak gurera ekartzeko moda “ultraliberalak”
kulturgintzan duen eragina iradokitzen dit.
Bada, “yankilandian” ere badira “urrea ez
da oro” esatera ailegatu direnak. Hortaz atzeraka doaz
orain hori diotenak?
Autobide bat... edo urtegia egiten denean, legea beteko badugu,
ehuneko hainbeste kulturari dedikatu behar zaio. Hantxe bertan..
errotondan edo porlanezko horman eskultura arbolatxoa bailitzan
landatuta konpontzen da sarri.
Nago noski-batez ere-ezer baino lehen “inpaktu ekonomikoa”gatik
preziatzen dutela gure hiriburuek, nork bere arte-garaikide-zentru-panpox
berria, gerora zertarako izango den... edota jendeak profitatuko
duen axola gabe. Ihartu ere egingo dira arbolatxo horietako
asko... partehartze formularik ez baitzaizkio ezarri “eraikin”
paregabeari, ez bertako artistekiko, ezta estralurtar espaziuntziak
baino begirune beldurtiagoz begiratzen dioten jende xehearekiko
ere.
Terrakotazko gudariaren argazkia, portzierto, etxean daukat
hor nonbait. Zin dagit Txinako enbaxadaren aurrean, Guggenheim-Bilbao,
edo Bizkaiko Foru Ogasunaren.. SPRI .. edo gisako industria-bizkortze
erakunde publikoen aurrean, ez dudala argazki horrekin neure
patrikarako “inpaktu ekonomikorik” sortu.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
“Click” when I had the Terracotta
soldier in my sights! Bit of an eejit really… coz I wasn’t
too sure what I was at, but it wouldn’t be long before
I found out. I was in the Guggenheim in Bilbao, and the young
watchman was over to me quicker than a dog growling and wanting
to know “what I was doing…I mean, how dare you take
photographs!”
“Christ” I says to
myself… what on earth was I thinking of when I brought
this camera in here with me. I hadn’t looked at the signs
at the entrance. I hadn’t spared a thought for the poor
people in Guggenheim who need to sell postcards and posters.
All this universal culture, and they were milking the Terracotta
soldier for all the merchandising they could get.
“Money is not what it’s really about” was
the editorial used by W J Hennessey, the director of the Chrysler
Art Museum in Norfolk, in the spring of 2005.
In
the last few years, a certain image has taken hold of the art
community: what really matters to the corporations and government
agencies that offer sponsorship is the economic impact.
(…)
What does theory lead us to believe: when the donators see these
incredible statistics, they quickly realise that art is a good
investment…so they are quick to move ahead and bring along
the badly-needed financial subsidies.
(…)
Should art organisations not underline to people the improvement
we bring to their standard of living? That’s what we are
here for at the Chrysler Museum, a place for family and friends
to come together; a place where you can discover yourself and
the world around you.”
That’s a private museum with a five million dollar budget.
Someone who’s loaded can come up with those kind of reflections.
But the article caught my eye. Why? Because it’s from
none other than one of the American super corporation’s
“social work” funds. I can picture the bend to incorporate
these ‘ultraliberal’ trends from “those so
far ahead of us, forty years ahead of us” in our world
of culture.
That said, there are those who in Yankee land have proclaimed
that all that glitters is not gold. Does that mean that those
who are saying this are going backwards?
If we build a road or a reservoir, a certain percentage of the
budget has to be dedicated to art by law. Sometimes you’ll
see a statue on the dam or like little trees in the middle of
roundabouts. Sorted.
I’m sure that above all, our capital cities treasure that
“economic impact”, each one with its own new pretty
little contemporary art centre that will be used for who knows
what in the future… or that people will profit from without
a care. Many of those trees will probably just wither away…
there was no formula for taking part in this ‘incomparable’
building, not for local artists or not for your average Joe
Soaps who gaze at these objects with more terrified respect
that they would at a spaceship.
By the way, I have the Terracotta soldier photograph at home
somewhere. I will swear in front of the Chinese Embassy, in
Guggenheim Bilbao. Or before the Biscayan Treasury … the
SPRI…. or any other public industrial development agency:
I will not use this photograph for any personal financial gain. |
|
|
| |
|
|