Syndicate: P2P report - Which Culture, which Media, which Europe?

[Andreas Broeckmann <abroeck@v2.nl>]

[abroeck: the following is a report about the P2P conference last autumn
which was written for the Convergence issue that Inke Arns has been
editing; since the report was written (january 98), the position of the New
Technologies initiative of the Council of Europe Culture Committee has been
overshadowed by political wrangling and it is not clear to me at the moment
which direction it will take in the future.]



Towards a European Media Culture - which Culture, which Media, which Europe?

Andreas Broeckmann

Introduction

Since the early 1990s, the European Union has been responding to the USA
project of the 'Information Superhighway' with an apparently less
technology-driven policy on the 'Information Society'. In the vision
expressed by papers of the European Commission in Brussels, and especially
by the group around Martin Bangemann, information and communication
technologies (ICT) ought to enhance people's lives in terms of work,
entertainment and education. However, the EU is an economic and industrial
consortium that is trying to remain competitive in a globalised economy,
therefore most funding programmes of the different General Directorates of
the Commission are geared at the development of new and marketable
products, whether on a medium- or a long-term basis. Anybody who has moved
from one EU country to another and who has tried to sort out all the red
tape knows that it is easier for a banana to be standardised or an
aeroplane to be built in five different countries simultaneously, than to
achieve compatibility within the EU on a social level.

In the ICT sector this means that there is a blatant lack of understanding
of the social and cultural dimension of new technologies, as well as a lack
of awareness of the highly active and critically productive European media
culture. To enhance the profile of media culture is a project that is now
high on the agenda of the Council of Europe (CoE). Unlike the European
Commission, the CoE has little political or executive power, but is rather
a lobby organisation for culture and human rights whose membership goes
beyond the fifteen EU states. Founded right after the Second World War, the
CoE is a network of well-meaning, travel-happy intellectuals, organisers,
national government officials and eurocrats from more than 40 different
countries who defended the morality of the old Europe during the Cold War
and who are now trying to regain the ground that they lost since the late
1989s. Questions of cultural diversity and the politics of identity, within
Europe and outside of it, play a major role in the CoE's discussions.

The CoE has formed a Project Group on 'New Technologies: Cultural
Co-operation and Communication,' whose goal it is:

'to analyse the inter-relation between culture, education and new
technologies, focusing on the promotion of innovative projects and products
that are European in content and of cultural value, in partnership with the
communication industries. It aims to seek ways to replace a passive
approach with a positive one - helping artists and educators to harness the
potential of new technology for themselves. Its approach is
multidisciplinary - finding common ground between policy-makers, artists,
scientists, sociologists, philosophers and both sides of industry.'

Through the Project Group, the CoE is trying to raise awareness about the
social and cultural impact of new technologies - an endeavour that is as
worthy as it is vague. In November 1996, a large conference in Prague
brought together experts from across Europe to discuss 'New Ideas in
Science and Art,' with the aim of developing a better understanding of the
'new space' emerging in relation to new technologies. This event was an
overkill: too many topics debated and too many people. For two days, a very
substantial assembly of theorists and practitioners hovered through the
aesthetics of quantum physics, media art of the 1960s and Pierre Lévy's
cyberspace philosophy. Significantly though the discussions in Prague were
almost completely isolated from the actual developments within media
culture as it is being practised and experienced by independent
organisations in many countries. Instead of recognising current
developments, the conference tried in a rather futile way to define what
the 'new space' might be in the future.

As a result of the discussion following the Prague conference, the Dutch
Virtual Platform,  an informal group of seven media cultural institutes in
the Netherlands, took the initiative to organise a follow-up conference
which took place in Rotterdam and Amsterdam in November '97 under the title
'Towards a European Media Culture: From Practice to Policy' (P2P).  The
conference, which was strongly supported by the Dutch Cultural Ministry,
took a more pragmatic approach towards the development of a media cultural
policy, recognising the fact that the impact of ICT on social, cultural,
political and economic contexts is reflected by media culture in a
multiplicity of ways. Media culture shows that the social and cultural
dimensions of the 'Information Society' are frequently articulated by small
and medium-size, independent institutions. The P2P Conference's aim was to
present and analyse existing 'good practice' within the fields of culture
and new media, and to use the presented case studies to develop concrete
policy guidelines for national and European government agencies. It
provided an overview of current media practice in Europe and thereby
facilitated the evaluation of national media policies and practices in an
international context.

The following report will not so much summarise the discussions and results
of the P2P conference, which can be looked up elsewhere (www.dds.nl/p2p),
but it will raise some issues which might be of more general interest for
the discussion about media culture in Europe. Special attention will be
given to comments made in e-mail interviews conducted after the conference,
by participants from Eastern European countries - a categorisation which,
as we will see in a moment, is precarious in itself.


Defining terms: which Europe? which Culture?

The question of which (and whose) language one should speak when dealing
with new technologies (the language of art, the language of the market, the
language of politics, etc.), and the problem of the dangers of a pure
'linguistic pragmatism', remained contested throughout the conference.
Miklós Peternák, director of the C3 Center in Budapest, Hungary, maintains
that the divisions created by terms like 'East', 'West', 'EU', etc., are
often debilitating for the work that is being done in the cultural sector.

'The context we intend to create goes far beyond political, geographical,
economical or even historical terms. Beyond borders and temporal
governmental agreements, state terminology and control. Terms like 'Eastern
Europe' are not understandable in a cultural context - except by
politicians. 'EU-Europe' and similar words are terms in a very important
new communication language which we have to use only when we speak to
journalists and/or bureaucrats in studios, offices, in public spaces. This
is also the language of applications and of fund-raising - and I wish it
would soon be automated by someone.'

Similarly, the notion of 'media culture' that appears in the title of P2P
was criticised for its lack of clarity. 'Culture' can stand for artistic
creativity, for forms of communication, and for groups of people, and all
three notions were often used side by side. The productive heterogeneity of
the field in which, as one conference participant remarked, 'all sorts of
people are doing all sorts of creative things with new technologies', may
not require a more precise definition at the moment, but there is a danger
of adopting a language of empty words and phrases.

There are also significant differences in viewpoint, knowledge and
experience regarding 'media'. During the P2P Seminar, some participants
tended to think only about the internet when they talked about 'media
culture', writing off everything else as 'old media'. And all but omitted
from the discussions was the entire market of mass media, a field which is
at the heart of the general perception - and a large industry - of 'media
culture'. Drazen Pantic, internet coordinator of Radio B-92 in Belgrade,
Yugoslavia, pointed to the political danger lurking in limiting one's view:

'It was visible from the start that participants were biased towards an
artistic attitude of the Web and electronic media. That means that media
issues in general were touched only very marginally, and that we totally
failed to build up some activist pressure on the EU towards legislative
unification. The media situation is not so bright in Europe now, and saying
that I do not mean only in Eastern European countries. The general
orientation of P2P was to check whether there is an open link towards more
funds, and that means industry.'


Political tools

The P2P Conference discussions were summarised in a common document, the
Amsterdam Agenda, which describes the current situation and suggests
desirable future developments within the field of European media culture.
At the end of the conference, the Amsterdam Agenda was offered to policy
makers of the European Commission, the Dutch government, and the Council of
Europe, and was discussed by a forum of Dutch and European policy makers,
representatives of industry and education and media experts.

The Amsterdam Agenda has the problems of many such documents. It was
reached by compromise rather than by consensus, and leaves aside many of
the disagreements and differences of opinion that surfaced during the
conference. Furthermore, it uses a language that is designed to be
understood by policy makers, which means that it is diplomatic at points
where it should be angry, and celebratory where it could be self-critical.
However, it might serve its function as a tool in future discussions with
policy makers, as indicated by Violetta Kutlubasis-Krajewska of the Open
Studio/WRO in Wroclaw, Poland:

'We are of the opinion that the Amsterdam Agenda, despite being too
comprehensive and, at the same time, too vague, may become a useful
instrument in the everyday activities of cultural institutions. The content
of the Agenda and the very fact of drafting it expanded the public
awareness of the modern, turn-of-the-century art, alerted the Polish
decision-making bodies to the emergence of a strong new current in cultural
life, and provided a background for potential financial support decisions.
The Agenda also helped these decision-making bodies and politicians to
understand the role of culture in the transformations leading Poland to the
membership of the EU.'

At the moment it is being used in negotiations with the Polish Ministry of
Art and Culture about the establishment of the Polish Media Centre in
Wroclaw; in the public discussions in Budapest about the importance of new
media culture for notions of the state and citizenship during the
Internet.Galaxis festival (1998); and to promote the development of a local
media cultural policy in Rotterdam. How effective it will be in these
situations remains to be seen.

The initiative falls at an opportune moment when the attempt to build new
cultural and media structures is on many local and national political
agendas. Evaluating the strategic possibilities from the perspective of a
young and small organisation in a local environment, Jaanis Garancs from
the E-Lab in Riga, Latvia points out:

'Strategically, the situation in many of the so-called ex-socialist
countries is rapidly improving, though the path of development is not
un-questionable. Many things can go wrong by changing (or not changing)
media/culture/education-related legislation. At the moment we can use the
will to 'join Europe' (i.e. guaranteed attention to P2P-like events from
local government representatives) to make 'that different Europe' which we
were thinking about during P2P.'


Which media? Public or private sector

In order to allow for a focused discussion among media practitioners during
the P2P Seminar, the number of participating organisations had to be
limited to around 20. The member organisations of the Virtual Platform (VP)
selected 15 exemplary European initiatives and organisations drawn from
their international network of partners. The differentiation within the VP
guaranteed the representation of a broad spectrum of projects specialising
in socio-cultural, educational, design and artistic fields, a relatively
even distribution of institutes based in East and West, North and South
Europe, and a wide spectrum of small and large-scale initiatives.
Unfortunately, this restriction meant that many important media cultural
institutions active in Europe today could not be invited. Nevertheless, the
selected initiatives were exemplary and represented both the strength and
diversity of Europe in this emerging cultural field.

The Dutch Virtual Platform, a small and informal network of media
organisations, had been taken as a model for the kind of dialogue and
co-operation that P2P tried to initiate on a European level. However, the
P2P participant organisations were much more diverse than the VP, and such
organisations cannot be expected to enter into a dialogue based on shared
ideas and trust within a few days. Most importantly, there was a clear
division between organisations oriented towards art and critical culture
which expect mainly public support for their work, and others looking for
cooperation from industry and the private sector, for the development of
ICT applications and products. Also the different sizes of the
organisations represented meant that the funds and forms of cooperation
which are almost 'natural' for some, were way out of reach for others.
Therefore in the discussion of (joint) political strategies, it was crucial
to recognise the differences between media cultural institutions, and not
to ignore them and make all-embracing, generalist statements.

In the conference discussions, there was a stronger emphasis on Western,
'EU' Europe, than the broader CoE-European dimension. This was, to a large
degree, due to the fact that Brussels is a common, however imaginary ,
target as a main financial source, and that - at least in the general
discussions - the focus was more on relations with EU-policy makers than on
locally specific problems and conditions. However, as Jaanis Garancs from
Riga commented:

'It was noticeable that the conference was not bi-polarised along East/West
(EU/non-EU) lines, but divided according to different ways of existence of
the participating organisations. Often I saw more 'mutual fellowship' among
organisations who existED on similar funding and responsibility formulas:
i.e. between state/official/sponsor money and
individual/independent/private funding and responsibility!'


The politics of cooperation

Like many of such politically motivated events, the P2P Conference
discussions were often predictable and repeated the mantras of common
sense, cultural critique and political strategisms. At the same time, it
was a get-together that offered ample opportunity for informal conversation
and for setting up new, or improving existing, working relations between
media practitioners. According to Drazen Pantic:

'A good aspect of P2P was that it opened a possibility for the gathering of
professionals from different countries, different lines of work, different
backgrounds and similar problems. In my view, all the best things that
happened there were located outside the official programme. And that means
plans for joint projects, links with people we did not know up to that
moment and checking actual problems people have.'

The degree to which such cooperation relied on personal relations was
indicated by Violetta Kutlubasis-Krajewska, who found that there was no
general move to establish new links between artists and institutions. Her
evaluation of the potential for the horizontal cooperation between
corresponding institutions participating in the meeting was more critical:

'In my contribution at the last session, I attempted to establish a
framework for co-operation with (usually well-equipped) Western European
media centres, in the form of workshops for Central and Eastern European
artists, who are for the most part, denied access to such tools. My appeal,
not surprisingly at all, met with a weak response. The recently established
Western European new media centres seem so exhausted with the fight over
the status quo and the equipment, that they are generally not very much
interested in an international co-operation with Central and Eastern
European artists who may bring in little by way of the equipment or
innovative solutions for using it. Therefore the main form of such
co-operation will probably be direct, individual contacts fuelled by an
interest in the other culture. I think that such individual contacts will
be the best method for creating common projects with Central and Eastern
European partners and for applying to EU bodies for support.'


Tactics

While the map of Europe remains fractured, the dividing lines do not always
run along the well-worn political, economic or cultural borders. The media
cultural field displays a more diverse, more complex political topology in
which access to new technologies is seen as a - sometimes token - guarantee
for cultural diversity, individual freedom and social justice. Jaanis
Garancs is cautious about a united european perspective but does see some
recurrent and familiar responses from across europe. There is, he says:

'much similarity of context in the kind of discussions about cultural,
legal, economic, political issues regarding the individual, state,
industry, commerce, international organisations. I have heard exactly the
same arguments in discussions in context of, say, municipalities of
Rotterdam and Riga, or some local newspaper in Sweden or reports from
ex-Yugoslavia. Some people are confused and upset, some people see an
enticing opportunity for 'big money' when they hear words like 'Internet
Art' or 'Information Society', or 'pornographic e-mail'.'

An important strategic question that the P2P conference raised and for
which people have to find their own answers, is that of the support and
allegiance that can be expected from policy makers. In many places there is
an honest interest on the part of politicians - partly fuelled by the
anxiety not to miss the boat - to talk to media practitioners and learn
from the expertise that they have.  It is too early yet to decide whether
the initiative fuelled by the Council of Europe, and the subsequent
national and local initiatives, will lead to much more than more meetings,
reports, seminars and documents, while the politically relevant decisions
are being taken elsewhere, or whether these discussions will have an effect
on cultural relations and on cultural policies in the long run.

During the final discussion of the conference, a representative from the
European Parliament encouraged artists to work together with commercial
enterprises to develop a more accessible, more 'user-friendly' media
culture. The Amsterdam artist David Garcia retorted that it was not the
task of art to be 'user-friendly', and that quite on the contrary, the
history of great art was a sequence of user-unfriendly and often offensive
gestures and works. Garcia insisted that this is a domain that art has to
defend for itself in order to survive.

Drazen Pantic advocated a similarly strong and affirmative stance:

'A tactical mistake we all made was that we were so nice and mild towards
the EU representatives during the final gathering. Except David Garcia who
really stepped out of this chick-face presentation, others tried to
communicate with Eurocrats in the language EU people are masters in,
abstract meaningless phrases. The EU people tried to assure us that they
are doing a lot for us, in a situation where only very few of the
participating organisations got actual funding from EU! The final session
was very similar to my recent experience with British Airways. In a
disastrous two-day return from London to Belgrade, in which everything bad
you can imagine happened to us, including an emergency landing, the crew of
BA kept repeating that they were doing everything within their power for
us.'


_______________
Andreas Broeckmann - V2_Organisation - <abroeck@v2.nl>
Eendrachtsstr.10 - NL-3012 XL Rotterdam - <www.v2.nl>
NEW t.+31-10-2067272; fax-2067271 - <www.v2.nl/east>
---------------
2nd leg: Pfluegerstr.27, D-12045 Berlin, +49-30-6233293
_______________
coming up: Dutch Electronic Art Festival, DEAF98, 17-29 Nov 98