Article Number One By Ferdinand Richard, Chair of the Roberto Cimetta Fund

As part of Ettijahat- Independent Culture’s Programme, the Cultural Priorities in Syria, we are currently compiling a series of articles addressing the challenges facing Syrian cultural work. These articles have been written by Syrian and non-Syrian experts alike, as well as various cultural actors.

The first topic the articles explore is the relationship between artistic content, public events, and message concepts.

Today, who determines the nature of the artistic standards governing the Syrian creative process?

What are the new red lines and censorship requirements governing art production inside and outside Syria?

How can we review and learn lessons from comparable international cases?

‘Article Number One’ By Ferdinand Richard, Chair of the Roberto Cimetta Fund, tries to highlight some possible answers.

Writing from a perspective of a non-Syrian, it is difficult to answer each question in its entirety. While one strives always to be fully respectful of the different pains Arab artists are enduring nowadays, there is always the danger of causing unnecessary pain through pretence.

Regarding the initial question the concept of "artistic standards" is by essence anti-democratic, as the starting point of any cultural or artistic public policy must refer to the Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "all human beings are equal in dignity and in rights". To be equal in dignity means that there cannot be any dominant culture and any alteration of this principle fringes upon the dictatorial.

It is important to recognise that this is Article 1, (which is not article 2, therefore it must be considered as the most generic one, driving all the following ones) and that it applies to all forms of transcendences of the reality, which we could call here "The Art piece". It also applies to all forms of cultural expression, including even the most modest. This is why some great Art-producers could have been (or could be today) non-educated, illiterate, very young, isolated, non-professional, speaking incomprehensible tongues while at the same time being universal. Translation is not about mechanics. It is about vibration. Music is a translation.

Although no science can tell us how music was born, some poets believe that, at the very early ages of humanity, when human beings had a very basic limited language, made of wild sounds, one of them was so hurt, so moved by the death of his/her companion, that his/her speech to the dead body became modulated by the suffering, and his/her voice started to chant. This was the birth of music, and it came out of suffering. Although suffering has reached unbearable levels in the Middle East, it is also a raw material (should I say an asset?) for future art production. I know it can be shocking to think like that, but it is also the single ultimate way to take something positive from such suffering.  Art is also a medium with the world of the Dead, with the Invisible.

Therefore, no one person can decide for the others what is "beautiful", "innovative", "valuable", etc... It is a personal and emotive approach, and, although it is entirely normal to wish to share one's personal feelings with others, it cannot be erected as a dogma.

... and no one should be forced to integrate with a model to which one has not chosen to integrate with, as this would be in direct opposition with this the very first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

In terms of the issue of censorship, xxx in times both modern and passed, all the expressions of power issues are mostly related to the falsification of History. It means that The Power always intends to re-write history, in order to achieve its goals. From this perspective, ethics have always been and always will be put aside. In a way, this is human nature, and falsification of History will always be a variable of everyday life. An artist cannot imagine to escape it, or to fight it. The telling of his or her own story is also to some extent a "falsification of History", as one can only present one’s own alternative to the dominant falsification. Falsification of the truth can also be seen as a major piece of Art. It is not a real problem as such. What counts is the intention behind it.

I finally wish want to stress that the time frame is the main issue of Art production. Although instant Art exists and can die even after a few seconds, the skills of an "artist" are slowly gained and permanently sharpening, and time frame must be protected.

It is also a form of courage to preserve one’s own artistic skills, because they have been inherited from someone, and someone will inherit them.  I do not speak French like my father. My grandson does not speak French like me. These successive alterations are an on-going culture-building process, and must be respected as such. An artist is not the owner of his/her art form. He/she is a medium. If necessary, he/she must protect himself/herself from destruction, and if self-censorship is the proper tool, well, take it ... Again, it is all about the intention behind the work.

Because of these limits, the artist inherits several responsibilities/options: He/she cannot consider his/her own production as being "better", "more beautiful", "more popular" "more valuable" than any others. He/she is there, right in the middle of the road, for better and for worst. No one can judge him/her. Cross fingers, and don't be crashed by the Big Truck of Power and Money. Follow your path.

An artist is in a single process of production, which in itself can be considered a piece of meta-art. We produce too many objects. We must concentrate on trajectories. The trajectory of an artist, from birth to death, is in itself a piece of Art. Look Van Gogh. Look Oum Kalsoum.

An artist is supposed to present a different approach to reality/history. It is the multiplication of these approaches and their relativity which will allow the individual "listener" to create their own conception of “the History". This conception is single, relative, temporary, and cannot be erected as a dogma. A good soup is made of different ingredients.

An artist is in charge of something which does not fully belongs to him/her, but also to his/her community.     

Self-censorship has existed everywhere. It is usually fuelled by economic considerations, not only by political ones. It is commonly assumed that economy and politics are two different subjects, which is far from obvious. In the Greek language, "politiki" means politics, "politismos" means civilisation. Perhaps they are merely converging concepts?

Again, who can say what the intention behind them is?

Not I...

Ferdinand Richard, May 2017