Regrets Borja Sémper that politics “moves through the permanent scandal and continuous shock”, and this does not allow the PP to dedicate to culture the space it deserves. «I assume a share of responsibility. My spokesperson for many times opaque … Our proposals and positions in cultural matters, ”he says. By way of atonement, on the eve of the interparliamentary next weekend, the spokesman of the party and vice -secretary of Culture and his directors have signed in Santander a manifesto in which they claim their cultural model.
–What are you looking for with this manifesto?
—All the political relevance that cultural policy has for us. Not only does it have to be circumscribed to the Ministry of Culture, but it has to have a very greased coordination with the autonomous communities and the municipalities, because they are first -order cultural agents. At this time it is essential to demonstrate the need to defend a cultural policy of freedom. Cancellation and signaling policies are reducing creative spaces. I think there is an absolute need to bet again on transgression. This is a direct confrontation with the current left, which lacks ideas and has been exhausted in its cultural proposal. It is an extraordinary opportunity to make the apology of freedom, which means making apology of the culture of transgression.
–Is there no freedom in Spain?
—There are freedom, what happens is that public authorities, especially the Ministry of Culture, row in the opposite direction. Fortunately, culture is free because creators are and because the consumer of culture is, but does not have the support and the support of the Ministry of Culture. Since the beginning of this legislature has been news due to problems or conflicts, whether the so -called decolonization, the attack on bullfighting or an erratic policy in the ministry’s management itself: the INAEM, certain appointments, the disappearance of the General Directorate of Cultural Industries … The Ministry is news for generating problems. They are not creating the conditions for culture in Spain to develop their full potential inside and outside.
“The right has not worried too many times about making a flag of culture”
–The manifesto defends that, “against myth,” the PP’s commitment to culture is “accreditable.” Why do they carry that myth?
“They are probably multiple factors, some of them attributable to ourselves.” Nothing happens to recognize it. And it is probably the political tradition of the right in Spain has not worried too many times about making a flag of culture, having had magnificent managers in cultural policy. But that myth can be disassembled, and it is what we are in. Culture is neither left or right. I respect that there are people who want to use cultural expressions to launch a political message, and I also defend that it is for cultural political expressions contrary to mine. But I am not at all interested in the vocation of transforming politics through culture. I am much more interested in the exercise of culture in freedom. And this is something that we can champion in a unique way from the bullet of the ability to transgress, to break it politically correct. Today there are new cleric that come from ideological angles of the left, fundamentally its leaders, who intend to use culture as a missionary of a political idea. This is harmful to creative freedom.
“It is much easier to plunge the PP than the PSOE”
–Is the culture sector more obedient when the left governs than when the right governs?
“I don’t have that feeling.” What I think is that it is much easier to plunge the PP than to the PSOE. The consequences are probably not the same. But we have our backs quite wide in that regard. It’s about reversing that too. It is that people are just as free when governing the left or when it governs the right. Probably the left, or leftist policies, have also managed to dominate the story also in cultural matters, and have managed to have a kind of protection against any criticism that is deeply unfair. If there had been a PP government that had appointed five ministers of culture, making the ministry a kind of tailor’s drawer, it would have been very criticized, as is natural. If the PP had put a Minister of Culture that is not dedicated to cultural policy, but to other things, such as the current one, this would have been very criticized, as is natural. And I think it is criticized in private, at least many criticisms of the sector come to me. My feeling is that in a generalized way some more of the Ministry of Culture is expected, but, as far as it is, it is not said in public.
–64 percent of the budget of cultural institutions comes from public funds. Is it a healthy fact for the cultural ecosystem?
—There are cultural institutions that need public support. This support has to be regulated in such a way that any shadow of suspicion about the intentionality of directing and channeling cultural institutions depending on the government on duty. That is why it is also so important that we bet on a patronage law. In this period of sessions we will present a proposal of law so that Congress debates a new patronage law that is truly revolutionary, in the sense that it contributes and adds to the public effort the private effort that exists and that is demanding to have legal certainty and some fiscal exceptions at the height of the effort they make. I am not talking only about large companies or large private heritage, which also, but of the average citizen who wants to collaborate with culture through patronage. And that this has a recognition that can be fiscal incentive or any other more Anglo -Saxon formula also of public recognition. The Blenging Law is going to be ambitious and has to contribute something really new, such as a high exemption regarding cultural contributions. If culture in Spain depends solely and exclusively on public support, it will be a culture that will be agonizing.
–The minister has decided that state museums will not exhibit human or mummies. What will the PP do in the regional museums that it manages?
—The ministry makes a torticra interpretation of the ICOM recommendation in the field of exposure of human remains. UNESCO does not tell us that human remains cannot be exposed, but has to be done according to certain requirements, such as the dignity of the exposed remains. In Spain there is not a single museum that threatens the dignity of any human rest exposed in its showcases or in its spaces. What will happen to the National Anthropological Museum, where there are thousands of pieces that have to do with human remains? Decapitalize our museums, either with this excuse or with any other, it is a mistake. We oppose in a blunt and radical way.
“Decapitalize national museums is a mistake”
–There are regions that are asking for the return of museum pieces from Madrid to their place of origin. Are you afraid of the integrity of national museums?
“It is not going to be for the PP or the regional governments of the PP.” The disintegration of the pieces, to steal national museums relevant pieces for the small political intention of some territorial leaders seriously harms the image of these museums, and also harms the citizen. We face conflicts such as decolonization, with the alleged return sponsored by the Ministry of pieces to Latin American countries or the intention that certain pieces of the National Archaeological Museum go to some local provinces or museums. This is a deep mistake. We oppose in a radical way. One thing is that there is collaboration and that certain pieces can be exposed in territorial museums, but disintegrating collections is a deep error.
–The Valencian PP has asked for the return of the ‘Lady of Elche’, and the PP of Tenerife the same with the Guanche mummy.
—I understand that a regional government asks for something, but the National Directorate of the party has to see Spain in its whole team.
–Do you think Luisgé Martín’s book on Breton should be published?
– We believe in freedom and also in editorial and publication freedom. That is, I would not have banned Truman Capote to publish ‘in cold blood’ or Carrère the publication of ‘The Adversary’. At the expense of reading the book, which I have a lot of interest in reading it, I think that having the opportunity to know evil and its description helps us fight it. We opt for freedom, always being aware that our judicial system also protects rights in shock and there may be a right in contradiction with freedom of expression, such as the dignity of the victims. And this has to settle a judge.
#Borja #Sémper #bet #transgression
