Andreas Broeckmann (Rotterdam/Berlin, January 1998) 

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

1. Introduction 

Since the early 1990s, the European Union has been responding to the US-American 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. More than anything, however, the EU is an economic and industrial consortium that is trying to remain competitive in a globalised economy, so that 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 situation also implies that there is a blatant lack of understanding for the social and cultural dimension of new technologies, as well as a deficit in 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. The Council of Europe in Strasbourg, founded right after the Second World War, 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, as they write in one of their folders, "to analyse the inter-relation between the 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."  

With the Project Group, the CoE is trying to raise awareness among these different groups regarding 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 all across Europe to discuss "New Ideas in Science and Art", with the aim of developing a better understanding of the ‘new space’ that is emerging in relation to new technologies. This event represented quite an overkill regarding the number of people who came, and the diversity of topics that were debated. For two days, a very substantial assembly of theorists and practitioners hovered through the aesthetics of quantum physics, media art of the sixties and Pierre Lévy’s cyberspace philosophy. Most importantly, the discussions in Prague were almost completely decoupled 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 and critique 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, was geared at a more pragmatic approach towards the development of a media cultural policy, based on the ‘good practice’, the experience and the expertise that exists among media cultural practitioners.  

The founding idea of the P2P was 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 (see links below), 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.  
  

2. Languages 

Miklos Peternak, 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 for 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 automatized by someone." 

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. 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, points 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. Some cases were mentioned briefly, but the general orientation of P2P was to check whether there is an open link towards more funds, and that means industry. Some people primarily talked about our ability to present ourselves to industry as organizations profitable for their support." 
  

3. 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 up expand the public awareness of the modern, turn-of-the-century art, alert the Polish decision-making bodies to the emergence of a strong new current in cultural life, and provide a background for potential financial support decisions. The Agenda also helps these decision-making bodies and politicians to understand the role of culture in the transformations leading Poland to the membership of the EU." 

The practical effects that the document can have will have to be seen. They are being tested in a variety of places and contexts at the moment, whether in the negotiations with the Polish Ministry of Art and Culture about the establishment of the Polish Media Centre in Wroclaw, the public discussions in Budapest about the importance of new media culture for notions of the state and citizenship during the Internet.Galaxis festival in 1998, or the development of a local media cultural policy in Rotterdam. 

Evaluating the strategic possibilities from the perspective of a young and small organisation attempting to build new cultural structures in the local environment, Jaanis Garancs from the E-Lab in Riga/Latvia writes: "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." 
  

4. Perspectives 

In order to allow for a concentrated 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 inititiate on a European level. However, it had been underestimated that the P2P participant organisations were much more diverse than the VP, and that it cannot be expected that such organisations will 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 more towards co-operations with industry and the private sector, at times through the development of ICT applications and products. The different sizes of the represented organisations meant that funds and forms of co-operation which are almost ‘natural’ for some, are way out of reach for others. It therefore became necessary to realise that, when thinking about (joint) political strategies, it is crucial to recognise the differences between media cultural institutions, rather than trying to ignore them in all-embracing, generalist statements.  

In the conference discussions, there was a very strong emphasis on Western, ‘EU’ Europe, while the broader CoE-European dimension was rather secondary. 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 comments: "It was noticable that the conference was not bi-polarised along East/West (EU/non-EU) lines, but according to different ways of existence of the participating organisations. Often I saw more 'mutual fellowship' among organisations who exist on different funding and responsibility formulas: state/official/sponsor money, and another 'camp' with organisations that rely on individual/independent/private funding and responsibility!" 
  

5. 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, "the 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 of the official program. 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 co-operations rely on personal relations was indicated by Violetta Kutlubasis-Krajewska, who found that there was no general openness for establishing new links. Her evaluation of the potential for the horizontal co-operation between corresponding institutions participating in the meeting was rather more critical: "In my contribution at the last session, stressing the effectiveness of the operation of the informal Syndicate network and referring to the slogan ‘You have provided us with access to information, provide us now with the tools’, 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." 
  

6. 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 writes: "I would not like to speculate that Europe is already 'pretty much united' - ‘no East no West no rich no poor, and we all are just great friends’. Paradoxically, though, I see 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 exacly 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 email’." 

An important strategic question that the P2P process 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 to miss the boat -- to talk to media practitioners and learn from the expertise that they have. Undoubtedly, there will be friction and a loss of energy in the process. It is early days 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 organizations 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." 
  

P2P Conference: http://www.dds.nl/p2p (incl. Amsterdam Agenda) 
Dutch Virtual Platform: http://www.dds.nl/~virtplat