All right, get that.
That's enough time.
You can see beneath these clouds how FLitos electronically
tables are corresponded.
We are making full attendance now.
aries onости on inoc Version P10 is
expanding.
So page six Friday we have six majority
see up here six floors.
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
In our sector, I think it always has a certain
fragility, a congenital one.
Sometimes I think that in crisis situations,
in some way, it affects so much.
I mean, you can think the other way around,
like a space or a fragile land where people are already used
to survive and function within the precariousness,
in a way, they may have more resistance to crisis situations
than other sectors, like finance, for example.
The truth is that, before the museums,
they were almost sacred spaces for a bourgeoisie
who had time to go contemplating art
and, at the same time, not only contemplating art,
but also finding other people of the same social class.
And this has made museums, since always,
not only to go to look at paintings,
but also to share ways of looking at them.
The museums were born with local political interests,
but not with local social and cultural interests.
That has never been the case.
I haven't known them since then.
If there is a museum, why don't they tell me?
In many cases, museums were born in Europe,
you have to look at history,
museums were born as entities to consolidate nations,
nations after the French Revolution,
for the most part,
to consolidate nationalism, a notion of patriotism.
When art is selected with national criteria,
in general, the objective is wrong.
When the transition comes, culture becomes a place of cohesion.
Culture must no longer be a thing that confronts one another,
it must no longer be a thing that the left puts on the table
to attack dictatorship,
but that it becomes a national heritage.
Culture is of everyone.
That concept of culture of everyone
comes from saying that culture must not be conflictive,
it must be cohesive, it must generate cohesion.
The museum becomes that value,
that place where we will be able to cohesion
all the Spanish beyond ideologies.
But if we place culture beyond ideologies,
what we do is desidiologize culture,
and, therefore, we make it a spectacular culture.
And that is where we have been,
and we are still there.
That is, a type of museum that makes it generate a political cohesion
that is the one that does not exist, in reality,
because we continue to have poor and rich,
we continue to have left and right,
we continue to have Catalan, Basque, Castilian and Murcian,
who do not understand each other,
that lack of general understanding of culture is the one that does not exist.
Of course, that model has completely failed,
because we are not better citizens thanks to culture.
In reality, museums would have to be neutral institutions
based on purely scientific, historical criteria,
but in reality they have always been manipulated,
manipulated by certain policies of the moment,
and this in our country, in Spain and in Catalonia in particular,
is evident.
There are many loans,
among museums, that a work is loaned,
knowing that later that museum will have to lend other works,
and it will be possible to make an exhibition in the future.
So it is a lot of political movement
at the level of work movement.
The artist is not much less the base of the pyramid.
It is an excuse, an excuse to generate a movement
that has to do with what?
If the neighborhoods change, restaurants open, motels open,
tourist centers open, new airlines open,
and so everything goes.
In the reports, in the studies that we have done,
of all the budget of an exhibition,
only 5% will stop the artist.
But the exhibition is made for the artist.
In this country,
as I said, there is a considerable deficit
of space and the will to expose people here.
There are many people who can do it,
as long as you want,
but it does not have much resources.
There is a deficit of space to expose,
and I do not think it is a museum policy.
It is very interesting.
But it is very partial.
With something,
there are many things that are not there,
which would be interesting to be able to do.
In any case, these institutions show
what is being done,
because the museum does not necessarily show
what has been done there.
But yes, having this view from the top
and from the perspective of the last years,
what is really a museum and what is interesting to show.
And I think that this cannot be done in any way.
What may also cost us at the city level
is to establish platforms that help
to continue these careers.
It is easier now, I think,
for an artist to start doing things
that can continue when they already have
a certain maturity as an artist,
when they have already developed
an important labor cost,
when they have certain people working on it.
This is the mark that I think is more fragile
in our city.
Museums have a life beyond
their internal content.
And as I said, they act as a form of
urban government.
And I think that here in Barcelona, for example,
the case of Macba is very clear.
Macba, in the mid-1990s,
is located in El Raval
and it is a project,
an idea that has since the late 1970s,
when an socialist administration
arrives in the city,
who knows that it has to correct
the deterioration of that neighborhood,
but it cannot be done
as a Francoist government had done
during the time, with a traditional police,
but it uses culture,
it puts it in the middle of a space of joy
and hopes that this culture,
as I say,
transforms the life of that neighborhood
to repeat it again,
not because it illustrates,
not because it teaches,
not because it instructs,
but because it transforms the economic conditions
and moves the population.
So culture has what we call a value
or a bio-political function.
It intervenes directly in life
without it being planted in front of a painting
or without it being passed through the door
of a museum.
And that is why I insist that museums
are, in a way,
very fascinating monsters,
absolutely fascinating devices.
We must also admit
that in the museum it is possible
to do things that cannot be done outside.
The museum allows
certain manifestations
of social plurality,
gender, sexual, work, etc.
that cannot be done outside
because outside they would be tilted
or literally they would be denounced
and we would go to court.
I think there is a word
that has been introduced in the projects
of the museum that is complexity.
If you say, look, the permanent collection
is here, it is quiet, the Temporals that I am changing
and I do not know what. No, look,
outside it is complex, outside
everything has changed.
And the museum has lost as the monopoly
of the content, which is a very good news.
Our works only speak to us,
to speak to everyone.
We could be more and more
the connectors of the possibilities
of discussion, of story,
that the generator gives a thing
that there is no public,
it is a lie, there is no public,
it is a million different publics.
You can not go with a single proposal.
Therefore, I think
there is a moment of transformation
that is very interesting, where the museum
surely is not yet
prepared for the teams.
It has a vision,
surely a bit paternalist
to advance the museum, to learn
that I think we should
clearly.
The museums used to be
inert deposits
of collections that did not move,
that were always the same
and that naturally,
when you had seen the museum once,
it was not worth seeing it twice
for the general public.
Except for a few pieces
of art, it was not worth it
to return.
The fact of programming
an exhibition is a very complex thing.
At first we have to see
what kind of museum it is.
It is a contemporary museum,
it is a museum of history,
we have to distinguish the museums
from the art centers.
The art centers are centers that have
collections and therefore they have to
socialize,
they have to visualize their collections
and as they acquire,
they have to show them.
Therefore, the concept of exhibition is very wide.
This historical division between
the collection that has always been said
and the temporal exposures, I think
you are getting bored.
The exposures are very expensive sometimes,
they are very thin, they last little.
And in return, the effort is enormous,
from many points of view,
sustainability.
And many things start to happen
that are between one thing and the other.
We present many exposures
within the collection.
The first thing to say is that the
temporal exposures are the engine
of the museums today to bring
a new public.
Or to make the public repeat the visit
which is the most important.
Because the museum has a public reserve
in its immediate environment,
which is the city, the region, the country.
But this public, if there were no temporal exposures,
would not return to the museum.
The temporal exposures have become
from 30 to 40 years ago
an essential element
of life and the economy
of museums.
The great debate that we have,
as the Tapias Foundation,
is in what moment the collection
has to be the main claim.
That is why I have also worked
for projects, it is better.
Then there are exposures,
which are more specialized,
and there are millions of things
that you can do
for more specific audiences.
The most important thing is to say
what exposition we are going to do.
This is the question that the museums ask.
And from there
once decided
based on an analysis
of the market, why not say it.
Then to see
what are the exposures and what
must be the content of those exposures.
With a half of an exposition
it could cost 250,000 euros.
With everything that the content,
the payment of honoraries to the commissioners,
to the designers,
they spent a lot of money
and they are still spending it.
Not only in the CCB, but many others
in the design of exposures.
What often forces us to think
that the presupposers' balance
should be in one thing or another.
Here the presupposers are very limited
in every sense.
Because what is left
at the end
to build exposures
is very fair.
All in all, I am from the wall
and can make great exposures
which is not so sure.
Many people have great ideas
and a lot of will to do them.
It is not so much an artist or another
that also, if you do not have
a criteria that allows you to be coherent
to review some proposals
and accept some others.
This is one of the current museums.
The force, because it forces
the so-called museum profession
to invent,
to listen to the public,
to do authentic
analysis operations,
marketing to know
what is the demand of the public.
But of course, all this with LIBA
also that museums
are a little
derived from their main function
which is the investigation,
to serve these public
in detriment of the care
of permanent collections
and the value of permanent collections
and permanent exhibition galleries.
Of course, today, in the temporary exposures
you can find
any type of material.
On the one hand, videos, photography
or even dried animals
such as work by Funcuberta.
So, the function
of the restaurant is very important
because it has to be doing a follow-up
very continuously
to see if there is any alteration.
I think the museum has found
with the dilemma of having
to advise a close audience
which is what you have said
to the local audience
and a global audience
at times
for example, we have a very
clear and identified proportion
which is 80%
of foreign audiences
and 20% of local audiences.
And they are audiences which cannot
give or address the same offer.
While an international audience
exposes the satisfaction
the collection interests
the local audience
what interests them
is a proposal
day by day
and which raises
an offer
or experience
individualized.
And as I said at the beginning
you have to do an analysis
of the market to know how to
not only attract more audience
but attract audience
of different generations
and different social and cultural extraction.
Barcelona, as you know, is the second city in the world
in tourism.
It is not the number of tourists
but it is the number of visitors
regarding its population.
Barcelona has 1,750,000 people
but it receives almost 9,000,000
10,000,000 people.
Of course, when you invest a lot of money
in a design of exposure
what you are in some way calling
a certain spectacularization of the product.
It is expected to make the product
what they are looking for.
Logically, it is also a social repercussion
and social repercussion is basically
a serious problem.
So, what happens
in the public adaptation
the interest of the museum
is to attract more people, to be more socially influential
not
if
what is around it
is a little problematic
so it is a difficult balance.
The museum
has found a great ally
not in that triad of art history
that were the styles
the nations
the times
but in urban changes
in the metropolitan identities
that are the identities
open to
massive circulations
of visitors, of tourists
to visit a city
and not pass through the museum
of contemporary art
and sometimes we will not understand
what is this art
but we have been in the museum
and the museum has assumed
perfectly within the behavior
of a global tourism.
The museum has to have a project
and a program that I believe is relevant
and to look for money
to do this program
so not to do what
they give you money to do
but to look for money for what you want to do
and the program obviously
has to have interest
and have to provide a response to the public
what happens is that
the museum does not have to be a tourist
it is not a show
it is a place of ideas
it is a place of debates
you can listen, you can laugh, you can cry
you can do everything
but it has a logic
which is the logic of knowledge
or dialogue
and here I believe that we all want public
what are we sure that what we have more
is not public
but of course the fact that the museums
have to obtain a level of
public knowledge
is also a perversion
because it forces the conservators
to the museum directors
to imagine positions that can have
great public success
and that can attract masses of public
which in many cases is done
in the detriment of quality
in the detriment of the need
the need to study permanent collections
very important
There are positions
that are in great public
positions
of great public
but that in this country
in this country it is not given
possibly in the Cacha Forum
it is done by someone
they have a report to do
and they are the positions of these itinerants
with great names, very relevant
and really very interesting
and they are the positions
that were created
but on the other hand
you visit the halls of Manac
this museum that we are now managing
to return to Rundal
a million years old, it is good
the truth is that it is not bad
there is still very little going on
in relation to the people who live
how can museums occupy this place
of course arriving to other types of public
without analyzing it
I think there are instruments that we cannot compete with
we are not an adventure port
nor are we in Barça
nor are we in the playstation
that is clear now
and in the end
we have to think
that this is the way
and that
Paul Latinamente
they are disclosing
a series of institutional personalities
of small museums
of medium size museums
but that do well done
that attract some public
maybe modest in number
but that however do quality things
for their natural public
their public of radiation
and not their distant public
to see the big difference
between public institutions
and private institutions
is that
we have different missions
while in the Spanish state
public institutions
have had an important role
because we are a democracy
still relatively young
and the establishment
and the confirmation
of a democratic regime
somehow an education
of the citizen
a civic training
that requires the true existence
of these public equipment
private institutions have appeared
as opportunities
to reinvest
corporate and business interests
with a certain social responsibility
that does not have
other objectives
and other missions
that are not subject
to public scrutiny
maybe a greater autonomy
a greater independence in these centers
curiously being private
that not the public
where the political interference is infinitely greater
then this has been very contaminated in Spain
the journalist
has ended up
building very strong collections
very solid ones
I think they are really doing a function
that does not make
the museums of this country
as always a private initiative
it is good to fill
what does not make public institutions
in this country
what happens is that it is also true
that with considerable shortcomings
because their resources are also limited
and this is the vision
that always gives a good person
not something more representative
I am quite a defender of the public
and I think
we have
a European directive
that the museum has of social responsibility
this forces us to define the processes
they are in a folder, they are on the web
it is very transparent
everything the museum spends here you can look at
it is not bad
really every private or private institution
is going to work
it has its own idiosyncrasies
and the situation
can vary a lot
and the dynamics can vary a lot
from one institution to the other
within the public sector or within the private sector
it is true that at the public level
there is a whole bureaucratic pair
because somehow
things have to be done
within administrative brands
that have to be taken into account
and that maybe
or above all
on a more independent platform
they are more flexible
the museum is a company
more and more
necessarily because
the public area
and even the European countries
is not willing to subvene
100% the museums
a model that was
the public museums
arrive with money, if you do not spend them
and return this money to the public
for 6 or 8 years
they have said
the model has completely changed and the money will arrive less
and you have to find a way to get the money
because this is really dangerous
it is fine but
it is taking the museum to the market
I do not think that we should ask the museums
to be self-financing, it is not our end
we can increase the maximum
the number of income
and therefore be more agile
more competent, ok?
until now
we do not want to preserve who is the function of the museum
there are many aspects of the museum
that objectively are a value
if you think that society is better
a society with culture
with heritage, with values of this
it is better, it emancipates people
in the end it is a space of freedom
it is a space where people can
become critical, they can generate their own opinion
this is the way we are paying
just like education or health
we have to recover the possibility
of going first
try to build the museums in a different way
socialize them
make them public
I do not think that they should be public
they should be common, it is different
the public is what everyone is
and the common is what nobody is
but, say that
I think that every time there is less difference
between a public institution and a private institution
as a museum
is interesting
not only by the background
of the capital
but also by how
it is able to combine
financial capital, human capital
public capital
intellectual capital
ideological capital, emotional capital
therefore
the distinction between public and private
I think that
it is very well seen
in the case of cultural institutions
for those institutions
that know how to make
this dam of capital
something interesting
this view of housing
of how many visitors
how much money
we look at the projects
we also think of new metrics
that are not only quantitative
there are qualitative metrics
if we are able to
students work in the hall
discuss what value this metric has
maybe it does not have the same value
that 30 of these 30 people
count more than 2,000 who have spent
an apostate and have taken a picture
here at the door
we are still clear of the figures
there is a lot of work to do
from the point of view of
value in another way
the role of museums and I insist
I am very critical of the role of museums
I think that
museums have
since the 70s
of the last century
until today
have experienced
some
as I would say
very important institutional shocks
the first
the need
to open up
to wider public
the second
the need to finance
resources and not depend
so much on the subsidies
of the public sector
the third shock has been
the introduction of the information
and the image
in museums
and the fourth shock has been
the shock of privatisation
of privatisation of museums
the museum is
adopting
a central paper
to show
or indicate
the path of new ways of social production
and inside
everything that we are going to
go through or educate
we are
interpreted
as highly productive individuals
even though it seems that we don't do anything
that we just look
that we just talk
precisely here is
a new model of social productivity
that capitalism
has assumed
and incorporated
since the late 1970s
so I think the museum
will remain in the avant-garde
not only of cultural
interests
civic interests
but also of economic interests
as the museum has the principles
it has a ideology
but at the same time
it can open up to much more diverse things
that are not the same
but in contrast
and because they have just
offered a vision
not only objective but also
broad as in some way
everyone can enter
from one side to another
and the result is
much more alive and richer
and I think that this
is only done by this certain eclecticism
not from the absolute radicality
that in the end
what it does is that
there is no other way
to see what you are seeing
there are many collective representatives
that would give the legitimacy
of the museum that they do not have access
and not the government
not even in the space of discussion
that in the future they would say
that the museum has to look for very different alliances
that are very good
we need them and they are working very well
but what happens
that those who do not have access
do not represent anyone
they are not
we will do charity
we will do something else
I find it important
that museums in some way
are in this
space of resistance
in this
tendency I think
towards individuality
towards
virtuality
the museum should give space
to a new objective
that happens by a certain canon of the common
and this has many problems
politicians accept that
the politicians say
the museum is the place where we come
to rest on Sundays
the museum must be
the blanket that gives us heat
of the cold
I think the museum should explain
because it is cold
the values ​​that the museum has
are those that are in society
or we thought
I do not know what
where people were
we went around
we did not come
we stayed all the other way
this
a critical reflection is not bad
I do not know
but if you do not know
no one and you are alone
do not forget
