Culture will be financed by those who understand why

[ad_1]

Conversation of the project expert “Rebuilding Ukraine together” with ex-deputy Minister of Culture and Information Policy Halyna Grigorenko.

– Halyna, since the beginning of 2020, you headed the State Agency for Arts and Art Education (State Arts), and in the middle of 2022 – you became the Deputy Minister of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine.

In fact, the most difficult years for Ukrainian culture are either the coronavirus infection with its limitations, or the war – with incredible challenges for security and self-expression. In your opinion, was it possible to achieve the goals with which these positions were taken?

– My motivation to enter the civil service was and remains constant – it is structural changes in the field of culture.

Having accepted Volodymyr Borodyanskyi’s invitation to join the Office of Reforms in 2019, I fully shared his confidence that separating the functions of policy formation and implementation is the right step.

The Ministry is overburdened with non-specific functions of individual projects (holding festivals, contests, awards) and property management. Actually, some of these functions were transferred to the State Department of Arts.

Oleksandr Tkachenko’s proposal to become a deputy minister was a continuation of my vision of work in the direction of systemic changes. But, of course, during the year and a half of the full-scale invasion, priorities have changed significantly.

– Looking at the state-building process of the last decade in the field of culture – do you observe the heredity/constancy of state policies?

Does culture have a development strategy with which artists and cultural figures can move forward?

– Lack of stability of policies and dependence on political cycles is a problem not only in the sphere of culture, it is a general feature of state administration in Ukraine. The change of function and reorganization of only the Ministry of Culture took place at least three times in the last 10 years.

There is no strategy in the field, and this was precisely the main task for me, which was planned for 2023-2024 with the support of donors, but did not have time to launch.

Specifically, clearly defined strategic priorities and operational tasks could become a support for sustainability. In addition, a clearly formulated strategy allows the sphere to be more understandable and transparent for other stakeholders in the government, without which it is impossible to move any reforms.

– The issue of money for culture is always sensitive. For three years, you were at the epicenter of the fight for money for culture in the Government. What can you write down in the positive, and what – in the negative?

– First of all, I want to note that the state budget for culture, which is distributed by the ministry, is only about a quarter of the total expenses for culture in our country. 75% of spending on culture and art are local budgets.

Therefore, the struggle in the government and within the walls of the parliament is only the “tip of the iceberg”. But, of course, it is extremely important that even in the conditions of a full-scale invasion, the funding of such important institutions as the Ukrainian Cultural Fund and the Ukrainian Book Institute was not zeroed out.

The flexibility of their activities, trust and transparency are another issue, no less important. I hope that by 2024 there will be funding for these institutions as well.

On the other hand, the structure of spending on culture has always been and remains an issue – 80-85% is wages, and only 2-3% is directed to capital expenditures, development costs, and not consumption.

With such a structure, we are doomed to a mode of existence-survival, not strategic development. And with the total amount of budgets for culture being about 2% of the consolidated budget of the country, we are floundering in the shackles of an outdated system that we cannot update, modernize, or rethink.

– Recently, you took part in the discussion of the results of the study of funding of culture at the local level in 2022, presented by the project “Reviving Ukraine together”.

It turned out to be quite an interesting discussion of the topic together with local self-government and experts. In your opinion, why do we have this state of affairs now? Who should finance culture?

– The first and main reason for the current situation is the outdated system of financing “processes” and not results. In the absence of a strategy, with clear indicators and points for monitoring, each institution, each of the institutions’ management bodies of culture makes a decision to move “as it was”.

And in some cases, at the level of regions, we see a significant decrease in funding due to a lack of tax revenues. What is the way out? In my opinion – diversification of funding sources.

We need to reorient ourselves from the paternalistic “the state or the government should maintain” to the search for partnerships and other sources. Many cultural institutions, after the full-scale invasion, were able to enter into a dialogue with international organizations for help, find partners, and local councils began to cooperate more with sister cities abroad.

Of course, this work requires the high capacity of the sector’s specialists – from mastering a foreign language to project management and reporting. And these skills will be the most in demand now.

Culture will be financed by those who understand why. Therefore, the advocacy of culture in a broad sense and the analysis of its effects is something that needs to be done at different levels, from national to local.

Attract business, initiate public-private partnerships, be open to new cross-sectoral partnerships, include communities in the decision-making process regarding cultural institutions and heritage sites in their localities.

– And the last question about money – there is an old Soviet network of cultural institutions in the country – tens of thousands of them.

The ministry’s policy of recent years on its modernization has not achieved results – the money for community cultural service centers has not yet arrived, and the conversation about cultural subvention is generally not at the right time.

Meanwhile, communities continue to maintain all this cumbersome infrastructure on the ground. What would you recommend to communities? Should we go back to history with a subvention for the modernization of the material and technical base of cultural institutions?

Did the ministry plan to finance the creation of cultural service centers already now – during the war?

– Cultural service centers (CSC), as a network optimization option, are already in demand in communities. In the de-occupied territories, we often encountered a request from local self-government bodies to create a CCP instead of destroyed libraries and clubs.

That is, on the ground, people are already trying to change this network, rather than recreate it. As for the subvention for the material and technical base – and now it is often not about renewal, but the purchase of completely new equipment instead of stolen or destroyed – it will be difficult to implement in the conditions of the deficit of the state budget.

But it is definitely necessary to return to this discussion in order to support less able communities in post-war reconstruction. The fact that the demographic situation will be very different in the regions, and, accordingly, the different level of tax revenues in the communities, does not mean that we should have culturally depressed regions.

Where communities cannot launch new cultural institutions by themselves, they need help from the state.

– Well, the last question. The future of culture in conditions of uncertainty. We have been living with this since the beginning of 2020. We invent something, we move somewhere.

The current war for identity is a deliberate act of genocide on the part of Russia, and it primarily concerns culture. How do you see the future of culture? What important thing would you like to emphasize to readers who want to continue to have Ukrainian culture?

– It is important to advocate culture, to be involved in cultural practices, to continue decentralization in culture and to move away from the socialist idea of ​​total support from the state at our expense.

Culture is not only, and not so much institutions and institutions, it is habits and practices. We, the insiders of the sphere of culture, should go beyond our bubble and communicate, explain, prove and involve in culture.

Because, after all, culture is about unity, cohesion and our resilience.

This publication was funded by the European Union. Its content is the sole responsibility of Ms. Halyna Grigorenko and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

[ad_2]

Source link