Institutional juggler. Does changing power gotta mean replacing the manager from culture?

krytykapolityczna.pl 1 day ago

Katarzyna Kowalewski: From reports published in the media of erstwhile employees of the Adam Mickiewicz Institute, a image of the institution in ruins emerged – devastated bands, crushed morale, traumatic experiences. What institution did you enter after Barbara Schabowska completed his work?

Olga Wysocka: By decision of the Minister of Culture and National Heritage Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz, the Adam Mickiewicz Institute was merged with the Independent Office. erstwhile I took office, a fresh institution began: a larger, richer, more diverse institution. My goal from the beginning was to rebuild the institutions in a spirit of openness and cooperation and to focus on the future.

How did the function of IAM change after being merged with a unit created by PiS with a conservative and patriotic profile?

IAM's primary task remained unchanged: promoting Polish culture abroad. We tell Polish culture to people around the planet by showing what is valuable in Polish culture. We do this through various artistic languages: theatre, dance, visual arts, music, literature, fresh media. We effort to avoid 1 dominant narrative. At the same time, we care about cooperation with manufacture institutions specified as the National movie Institute, the National movie Archive – the Audiovisual Institute, the Centre for the improvement of Creative Industries, the Book Institute or the Theatre Institute to complement each other's activities alternatively than duplicate them.

What were your first steps at the institution?

I focused on the squad due to the fact that the institution is as strong as the people who make it. We have changed the organisational structure, proposed a fresh model of work, which we discussed together with the team. I wanted to decision distant from the hierarchical governance kind for cooperation and dialogue. In the first months there was tension, but conversations allowed them to break and build trust.

Was the fresh order created with the squad you found? Did any people leave?

It was a natural process. any people left, and we didn't meet in the imagination of the institution that I proposed. delight note that for many months prior to the merger there was large uncertainty in the IAM teams and the Independent Office. It was not known what the future of the institution would be, who would lead it. This generated tremendous tensions and burdens for 160 people who did not know their future role. erstwhile I started work, the atmosphere was filled with anxiety. In time, the squad was able to build energy and cohesion. fresh workers joined, who brought a fresh look.

Why do you think the minister didn't announce the contest, but decided to send it?

Minister Sienkiewicz has repeatedly explained that institutions specified as the Adam Mickiewicz Institute, the National Culture Centre, the Book Institute or the PISF are the strategical arm of the ministry and give directions to cultural policy, which is why the selection of directors took place in a different way. In my case, I received a proposal after interior verification of respective candidates. I do not feel "anointed" – it was a decision based on the evaluation of my achievements and programme. At the same time, I believe that in the future more emphasis should be placed on transparency of the process and transparency of decisions.

I'm not here to question your choice or your competence, but your system. Continuation of ministerial traditions of broadcasting weakens IAM for the future. So erstwhile the government changes, the political model is likely to change. Then the ministry might want to replace you with individual else.

Yeah, it's a real risk. I'm aware that my appointment was a minister's decision. However, my function is to implement the approved concept and to adapt it to geopolitical realities and to strengthen the improvement of the artistic environment. I believe that the future of the institutions should be based on competence and experience, not on political prosperity. Otherwise, we will always be in the individual exchange cycle alternatively of building the continuity and stableness of institutions.

How are institutions protected from political takeovers at the moment?

Director contracts, evaluation strategy and competition procedures operate. IAM besides took part in the consultation on the amendment of the "Act on organizing and conducting cultural activities". The legal framework is crucial but insufficient – it is equally crucial to build strong institutions, based on democratic values and trust, due to the fact that they are the ones that give opposition to changing political conditions.

I will return to the subject of the update of the Act on the organisation and conduct of cultural activities. What is the most urgent change today?

Clear procedures are needed to appoint directors – e.g. the work to print the justifications of the ministry's decisions, the word of office and the participation of independent experts in committees, which is already partially the case. Better evaluation mechanisms are besides needed to measure the institution's managers on the basis of real results alternatively than political preferences. In our experience, the rules on mergers besides request to be amended.

You are under the Ministry of Culture, but the scope of your activity falls within the area of the Ministry of abroad Affairs.

True, this dualism has caused difficulties over the years. However, experience has taught us how to work better with abroad institutions. I am glad that present this is working more efficiently, joint initiatives let to advance Polish culture more effectively, combining knowledge, experience and resources.

How does geopolitics, specified as the Israel-Palestine conflict, affect the activities of the Institute?

Every geopolitical change straight affects us. We have suspended the implementation of projects in Israel and we support anti-violent creators. There have been hard situations, 1 of the European artists resigned after seeing information on our website about projects in Israel. akin challenges arise in Ukrainian projects or with Russian artists. We must be peculiarly careful not to lose credibility in the eyes of partners, audiences and the artistic environment.

You were the manager of the Warsaw Culture Observatory, formerly Deputy manager of Zachęta. At any point, I think there's something about the profession: the director.

Many years of moving an institution can form certain habits. However, I am glad that I went through all levels – from squad work to management. This helps me remember the position of the workers, and at the same time I can look strategically. The manager can be lonely – the iconography of Katarzyna Belczyk from the task reflects this well List of deficiencies – where at each phase of the block you can see groups of people, and at the top is simply a lonely figure. Above it is the inscription, “It was not visible how lonely it was at the top.” The ‘professional’ manager is simply a very liable and hard function. However, I am very fortunate to work with extraordinary deputy directors – Olga Brzezińska and Piotr Sobkowicz. This enables us to implement a model of co-management, in which we make decisions collectively, and the sense of loneliness is less.

Collective management is very hard in a large public institution, as shown by the example of Dramatic Theatre.

Full collectivity in a large public institution is difficult. The eventual work always rests with the director, but the decision-making process can be shared, which fosters diversity and better results, and talks are of large value.

On the another hand, working with people can be a large challenge, and participating work can be even greater.

It's true. Working with the squad is simply a challenge – it requires empathy, patience and consequences – but it is besides the foundation of a strong institution. The participatory model is more difficult, it takes more time and patience, but it brings better results due to the fact that it builds the commitment and work of the full institution. The squad that feels pernicious becomes creative, courageous and can overcome program and financial challenges.

National art or critical art – how do you decide what to advance abroad?

The most crucial thing is your partner's interest. We organize survey visits and invitation curators, directors, programmers to choose projects suitable for their audience. Thanks to this, they are besides engaged organizationally and financially.

I find sending projects "forcefully" ineffective and costly. Experience has shown that patriotic narratives, although in Poland they answered social needs, were incomprehensible abroad. Projects that affected universal emotions gained widespread recognition. Andrzej Wajda, Marta Górnicka, Karol Radziszewski are examples of artists whose work speaks about Poland and at the same time they discuss universal themes.

What place are you in now after a year of work?

It's been a very intense year. We conducted the Polish-Romania cultural season, prepared the Polish-UK season, started the programme accompanying the Expo in Osaka and conducted the abroad cultural programme of the Polish Presidency of the EU Council, which included over 200 events in 30 countries and the participation of over 1,200 artists. It was a immense substantive and organizational challenge that we have been working on. We have shown that Poland not only presents its heritage, but co-creates global trends. After a year of intensive work, we capitalize our achievements and increasingly mark our presence in the world. This is simply a very good minute for the Polish artistic community.

* Oh, my God *

Katarzyna Kowalewski – a postgraduate of Polish philology and cultural studies at the University of Warsaw.

Read Entire Article