 So, can you open the presentation, because it would be easier for everyone to follow what I want to share with all of you this morning. So good morning, everyone. Welcome to this morning keynote, thanks to organizer, ITM network as well, Ikok Rieke, who invited me to be part of this ITM gathering. This morning keynote will focus on democratic cultural policy. So basically I will discuss the concerns, the limitation, the paradoxes, the consequences as well as responsibility of democratic forms within the cultural policy framework. What is basically a very complex issue, especially if we take into account that the culture as a word is one of two or three more complicated words in English language, what stress Raymond Williams already at the end of the 70s. On the other side we have democracy, proliferation of democratic forms which happen all around and at the end of the 90s detected in a literature 550 types of democracy. So this explosion of labelling of democratic forms show us that democracy as a political system can be appear in a variety of democratic practices and give us opportunity to analyze to explore what it exists and what are missing there. So I'm not an artist and I'm glad that you come to this keynote especially because this morning or this whole day will as I heard will detect somehow to the issue of advocacy. So I will basically talk about the cultural policy in a relation to democracy. I will use this mic. Does it work? No. Now it works. Okay. Now here I will need the help of some of your colleagues from ITM network with my presentation. So I will move a little bit around to pass with all of you through this lecture. So please next slide. What is important when we talk about the cultural policy to understand what the cultural policy is? So it exists when the agents of the political system intervene in the production distribution consumption of the cultural products, cultural services, cultural experiences. And the cultural policy basically express the relations between the political system on one side to the cultural resources. And this kind of the relationship can be normative, ideological, organizational, economical or any kind. But what is really important when we talk about the relations between the cultural policy and democracy is to understand four different dimensions. One of them is of course access and the participation. And I will basically focus most of this keynote on this area because the topic of this gathering is the audience. But other dimensions are also important when we want to explore cultural policy from the dimension of democratic forms. So to explore the scale of democracy within the cultural policy framework. One of them of this dimension is expression of democratic aims, ideas, principles, norms and so on, which basically appear in different documents, in different political decisions. So we can basically explore the scale of democracy in those documents. Another dimension is related to the institutional structure, to agents and their interests. So basically how the institutions are structured and which kind of the procedure they develop, is it a democratic or not, or in which level, which scale. A third dimension is as I said already access and the participation. And one of the crucial questions here is for whom do governments support arts and culture? The main assumption here is that everybody has the right to access to culture as a social good. And the fourth dimension is distribution of economic resources, which based on the ideas and the strategies are implemented through money. And the money is one of the possible indicator in many cases, the most concrete indicator of the public and the private investment. And here one of the question is which mechanism for distribution is the most democratic? So we can analyze the mechanism of the distribution if we want to see how democratic is or not. Please next slide. But so can you, yes please, to put everything, because otherwise it wouldn't function to ask you please next, next. Okay, thank you. So talking as I said, I will focus a little bit on access and the participation. Talking about the participation, we can all of us know that it has a long tradition. It appears in various different geopolitical contexts. And it's also a result of the changes in relation between the state and the citizens. And it's a result of the communication and the technology development. Participation basically today is not a static numeric concept at all. So we experience this shift to participation and live in that area. So it means that participation exists today in different area. It's not only in the political arena, then also in education, in media as well in arts and culture. So today participation became democratic imperative and somehow poison new opium for the people, poison for the people. So something happened here with my presentation. So I need the next slide, but if it's not possible, okay, we lose the time. So I will stay here. Okay. So this is the next slide. And please, it's not possible. Okay. So I will continue without my presentation. I will bring my laptop here so to help me. So maybe I can use now this mic, sorry, it's a technical problem. So I move to this mic and you can hear you. Great. So talking about the participation today, it's necessary to be aware of the fact of differences between the instrumentalization of the participation and the real participatory institutions. Distressed by many authors. So it means that each participation doesn't mean that it is emancipatory. Our political interest for politicians is much more easier to justify public spending on cultural projects if the project gather a larger number of people. In many cases, participation is not fulfilled. It's just used as a starting point as an inspirational moment, but basically it's not devoted enough time, enough resources, enough attention to something what is so complex and demanding as a citizen's engagement is. Then also in a majority of cases, the engagement of citizens doesn't make a real distribution of power and resources. So it means that the decision-making process is not open at all. And that we face some kinds of disbalance between scale of democracy and the scale of decision-making. Participatory instruments today dominantly focus on creation of the public formulation of the public opinion and are far less attentive to actual reform. So this is what basically we have. Talking about the cultural participation as a right, two main documents we have, at least as inspirational documents, one is a universal declaration of human rights and another one is a universal declaration on the cultural diversity. But to understand cultural participation today is also necessarily to see the difference between traditional understanding of the cultural participation and the contemporary approach or understanding interpretation of the cultural participation. So the traditional one, understand participation as a very passive, as attendance at the cultural events and the consumption of cultural contents, which is basically listening to concerts, reading books, watching movies, visiting museums and so on. On the other side, the contemporary understanding of the cultural participation, understand participation as an active, as a playing music, writing books, creating movies, curating exhibitions and so on and so on. And basically this contemporary understanding of participation tackled all elements of the cultural circle from the creation through production, distribution, till facilitation. At the higher level of the cultural participation represent the participatory approach, which means participation in decision making bodies and the process. Why it's important to explain this? Because the participation still understand in a different way depends on the context. So in many cases, and I met several people, researchers around Europe who told me that the participation for them is still very passive action and this is the reason why they decided to use some other terms, other notions such as engagement or inclusion when they want to express this necessity of the citizen's engagement in arts and culture. So basically when we, you can move to another slide, another, okay. So it's through this changing of understanding of participation, we basically face this shift from passive observer to being active creators. Moving next slide, looking at the cultural policy and the paradigm which tackle the issue or which established because of access and the participation with the aim of inclusion and participation. In the history development of the cultural policy, we can find two main paradigms. One is a cultural democratization and another one is a cultural democracy. The first cultural democratization which appear to provide access to cultural goods to the general public appear around 60s as a top-down approach, monocultural concept and with the elitist approach which established in the 19th century. And as a critique to this concept, to this paradigm of the cultural policy during the 70s, the cultural democracy appear as a bottom-up pluralistic concept which promote a cultural diversity, cultural rights, multiculturalism and community cultural values. So while cultural democratization focus on a high culture, cultural democracy focus on a popular culture. And basically the cultural democracy is the paradigm which recognize the creativity of each social group and also created the support for the creativity of each social group. So in that sense, it's a create equal opportunities for citizens to be culturally active on their own terms. In a difference, cultural democratization as the first paradigm which appear to provide the success to cultural goods recognize the role of experts as a very important role. And the experts are the one who decide and determine what are aesthetically superior forms of arts. The cultural democratization paradigm created the measures such as reduced admission prices, popularization in media, education and so on and so on. And the area of assessments in a cultural democratization paradigm are sold ticket numbers, social consumption of the audience and so on. On the other side, the cultural democracy created the measures through which support individual cultural expression, different kind of the subcultures. And the area of assessments in this paradigm is a degree of participation and degree of individual expressions. The world paradigm developed relations to equality, but the cultural democratization to equality of outcomes, results and the products, while the cultural democracy created the relations to equality of opportunities. So the concept of the cultural democracy, unfortunately the ideal of cultural democracy is not fulfilled. And this is the reason why many researchers, many cultural professionals criticize the concept of the cultural democracy as well, not only the democratization of culture. So this is the reason why it's really necessary to concern, to think about the main concerns of the cultural democracy in three areas. One of them is cultural policy, where we have a rhetoric limitation. So it means that in a cultural policy framework, we can find a plenty of different documents and the paper and different kind of the narratives which articulated the issue of participation and the cultural democracy and how important it is. But we face the lack of concrete policy instruments through which this kind of the concept and the rhetoric can be transferred to the practice. So we basically live in a time of restricted, elitist, hierarchical and centralized manner of cultural policy structures. And because of that, we faced also the difficulties to change practices of cultural policy as well as the institutions as a consequence of these changes. Another area which is necessary to think about is arts and culture, of course. So cultural democracy, in many cases, is criticized because of the cultural relativism. So the cultural relativism is referred to anti-hierarchical access to creativity, which basically means approach to arts without respect to arts as a hierarchical vertical selective process. The paradox of cultural development is this creation of a regulation of artistic production on the free market, which is increased. On the other side, or parallel to this, we have abolishment of elitist approach to artistic production and the cultural production as well. And also the aim of increasing the number of the participants. And as a consequence of all of that, we have that the consumption and the accessibility at the end depends on the financial capacity. And while the level of accountability are decreasing. So this is also bringing us to the very important issue to take into account when we discuss the cultural democracy is a public quality and the ownership of culture. Because one of the main assumption of the cultural democracy is understanding culture as a public good. But the question is how we can develop the cultural democracy in a context of the creative economy and privatization of the cultural fields where the needs to generate the benefits are increased over the aesthetic aspects. And when in a situation when aesthetic and artistic values are marginalized. The third area, which is also necessarily to critically understand or analyzed is of course participation. So basically the crucial question here is who participate? Do we have and create the organized party only for the elites or not? Who decide? It's also another question. So the question is basically does the gathering enough? What we have to do more to really create engagement and the participation? So this is bringing us to the question who defines defines the rule of the game. Because it's not only the question of being a part of the game then also to create the rules of that games. So this imperative of forms influence and created the relativism of the content. And this is also something what is very necessary to critically understand or analyze when we talk about the participation. As well as inequalities. Because participation appear also with the idea of you know to work with these inequalities. But since participation became mantra of neoliberalism and focus as I already said most or dominantly on the formulation of the public opinion but not to work on a real actual reform. It's also can be understand as the notion who legitimize inequalities. So all of that basically blurred the lines between the participation, instrumentalization and the populism which is necessary to be aware. So what kind of the participation legitimize democratic cultural policy? So maybe you can try to move to another few slides more. Please go further. One more. So stay here please. Thank you. So I suppose that many of you know this the letter of citizens participation made by Einstein at the end of the 60s but it's still resonated. Why? Because it show us the different possibility of participation or different level of participation from non participation to the higher level which is citizens power and the citizens control. So this is bring us to the topic to the concept of participatory governance. So what participatory governance does it mean? It's a sharing governance responsibility among different stakeholders basically between the public and the city civil sector and empowers citizens for decision making on a public issues. And it implies many different aspects solution. It's created solution for the erosion of democratic vitality, solution for political passivity, citizens shift from passive observers to being active decision maker. It's created also more comprehensive and updated concept of the citizens participation which is related of course to the centralization of power structures and decision process and the higher democratized model based on responsibility and common decision making. But all this kind of the decisions should be related to public problems and the public interest. But what talking about the participatory governance and talking about the creation of real participation or environment which could offer us this possibility, I think that it's also important to stress why it is important to support artistic autonomy within the democratic cultural policy framework. I think that today we live in a context of democratic deficit and lack of democracy in institutions, domination of economic growth and efficiency fails in contemporary public policy withdrawal of state from intervention in the public services such as the social health education and so on which basically created the neoliberalization of the public policy. We live in a society of inequality, commodification of cultural resources, issues of accessibility is all around rising nationalism, xenophobia, intolerance and the discourse of participation perpetuates existing power relations in a case if the decision making process is not open. So all these changes places plenty of demands for the cultural institutions and arts. So basically we live under the pressure as a cultural professionals and artists and many expect that the arts should fulfill the all gap which we have in our context. And this is the reason why I think that always is necessary to remind ourselves what intrinsic values in arts are and why they are important, which is resonate somehow to what Sergei yesterday talk about the crisis of valorization and the domination of this instrumental benefits and instrumental values. So intrinsic benefits are effects inherent in the arts experience itself. They are the starting point basically of any other benefits and values. Intrinsic benefits are not strictly private. It's also contributed to the public welfare. And what is really important to stress that intrinsic benefits are the principal reason why individual participate in the arts. So basically without intrinsic value we can't expect any other kind of the benefits. Intrinsic value could be immediate second or third. It could be related to the private area or the public area. It includes pleasure, captivation, stimulation, meaning, growth of individual capacity, cognitive growth, creation of social bonds, expression of common values and the community and so on. And it's really important to have this in mind when we think about the cultural policy framework and how we can change and improve in a sense or in a context of democracy. So what should the 21st century democratic culture policy looks like? If you move to a few slides, a little bit more, just I think it would be easier for you to follow my final thoughts. Next. Does it work? Next, please. Next. Okay. So I think that some aspect of the democratization of culture and cultural democracy should go hand in hand. But what democratic culture policy for 21st century could bring us is culture for everyone in which all stakeholders, not only institutions, but also individuals and groups will be involved, open, as I said earlier, decision making process, based the practices on a participatory approach, different co-production, co-creation and so on. Be similar for the professional and the amateur and make evaluation based not only on social quality than also as a static and artistic quality and be ready for the transformation of the institution. Because today, especially when we talk and when we look at the public cultural institutions, they are still maintaining and the work on some elitist approach which established in the 19th century. So basically we faced and come into contact with the cultural products based on this elitist taste and desires. So based on this kind of the concept, it's a possible to imagine transformation of the public institutions and I will suggest you how, how it's possible. So it's necessarily to develop everything based on the sharing of responsibility and sharing of the resources, different kind of the resources and based on the collaborative activities, of course, where the results would be similar important as a process. So all of that bring us to the idea of a new public culture because the participatory governance could be exist in different models. It could be hybrid institutions, for example, creation of the new institutions established by public and the civil sector, for example. It could be co-governance model, it could be joint management model, so different kind. But when we talk about the new public culture, which is a concept coined by creation sociologist Viren Katunaric in 2004, somehow also resonate to the concept of the participatory governance because the idea of the new public culture is to bring together into a common space of dialogue, culture production and expressiveness, different cultural stakeholders who have different kind of the interest and the motivation and also bring the heterogeneous public in the dialogue, in this togetherness of working on some issues. So the benefit of this new public culture concept could be on different level. More stakeholders, for example, improvement of dialogue and level of cooperation, rise of mutual trust, increase governance capacity, improve the ways of citizens participation in decision making process because it's not easy at all. It's a very complex, it's a really process and also affiliated citizens as well as experts in a new institutional format. For the society, what the benefits could be of this new public culture for the society? Invent and experiment with a range of new participatory mechanisms, creation of the new values, new interactions, new relations, new ways of engagement, promotion of coexistence, civic progress, engagement exchange and also potentially induce some positive changes and reshaping the society. And it could be also some tools for preserving public resources for the future generation. And in total, it could improve the social, economical, ecological aspects of the local environment. And the third area which we can also analyze the benefits of the new public culture is the cultural policy, of course, especially for the testing new model of governance, taking the role and the mandate of the public institution and culture, distribute public resources in a much more appropriate way, provide a wider access to different groups and the individuals as well, and also created a better condition for transparent realization of goals and achievements of results, which is a very important aspect in this context of deficit of democracy, which happened all around the world. It also can increase the scope of care for public needs and interest because different stakeholders come together, sit on the same table and discuss on the public interest, public goods. At the end, of course, improve the democratic process and also created the long-term and sustainable places of encounter of different expressions and interests. So in total, if we created this kind of the environment in which different stakeholders can take a responsibility and became or take the role of being active decision maker, I think that it's possible to create the new focal points, new meeting points, new kind of the platform of knowledge that can't address universality or claims universality then be in a constant reconsidering, renegotiating its own position and be or create the dynamic platform which always be ready for a change depends on the local context, but always also take or defends the artistic freedom and artistic expression. So I can't provide you any kind of the recipe how to do that. This is a different kind of the directions, but if it's necessary to bring something on the table, it should be a balance because I believe that any kind of the radical policy is exclusionary policy as well. Thank you very much for your attention. So I really hope that you were able to follow this lecture. I have one question there or comments. So if we have a time, can we get a mic? I see also there and there a lot of question. Hi everyone. This is Madiha. Hello. Thank you very much for the talk. It was very, very relevant to my work. I run a project called the cultural ecology project in United Kingdom. This is more of a comment than a question. First, well, I do have a question. Can we access your PowerPoint presentation somewhere because there was a lot of information that I can use in my practice and in my work for research. Also the cultural ecology project, just to add to what you said, I've met a lot of you here today and I've told you about it already, but I'm mainly based, I work in the South Asian art sector and I do agree with you when you said, you know, the statement, cultural participation is a right and I think we should all, as members of the arts community, make sure that rather than creating work and inviting people to come and see it, we need to create work with people and that will create a more sort of positive cultural ecology. That's all I wanted to say. I would really like to access your PowerPoint presentation, please. Yeah, ITM Natro Calrity has my PowerPoint presentation, so I really hope that they will be ready and happy to share with all of you. I don't have mine. I prepare for this occasion. So thank you, Daa, for sharing your vision and also offering us an overview. I want to share with you my fear and also ask you to save us a bit, if you can, please do. I think there is a systemic problem with democratic theories that value and focus on public, I think a bit too much, public spaces, public art, public culture and what I think is that over the last couple of decades, but even before, what we have lost is actually the battle for the intimate. And today the intimate is actually the space where the politics is the side, where vote is the side and so on. And if we look at the sphere of intimate, it is not theaters and schools and so on that are reigning there, but actually Google and Facebook and other consumerist practices but also in the intimate sphere, this is where the patriarchy and misogyny and all other forms of exploitative ideologies are actually ruling. So we have lost the battle for the intimate. My question is how can we as artists and as academics, as researchers, how can we regain some kind of access to the sphere of the intimate, to the lonely, to the bodily, to the corporeal, those that are not in the public? Because I think if we, whatever we do in the public sphere, it remains very far from the intimate spaces and this is where capitalism has actually found a new way to rule. So do you have any idea what it would mean to regain some kind of entrance to the intimate sphere? Thank you. Lauren, for your comments and a really difficult question which needs another half an hour at least to go deeper to this aspect. But I think that as a public manipulated, intimate space as well is manipulated. And one of the possible answers could be also through arts, but understanding arts through this intrinsic benefits which I mentioned earlier. Because arts doesn't happen only in the public space. It's happened in all of us basically as our expression and reaction to the arts content, different kind of the content. But how we as a community, artistic and the cultural community can work on that, I think in a combination of different approach. And as I said at the end, I don't believe in any radicalization. I really believe on the balancing between different kind of the approach. And this kind of understanding of our environment and how we can imagine better future, I utterly believe can bring us to less polarization in our society in which we basically live in a society in a total, but as well in arts and culture when we are constantly in different kind of the fighting between the sectors in the same disciplines, but as well between different actors and so on and so on. So this could be one of the possibility. I saw also there, yes, my name is Eirun. I have a question because when I, in the cultural policy documents in my country, we are very much emphasizing the sort of the idea of participation, you know, the sort of where we are now. And I see it very strongly and it's very strongly what the politicians are talking about and the field is talking about. But what I haven't really seen is that we are making any large changes when it comes to how money is distributed. Large amounts of the money are still going to the big sort of traditional institutions. So are we seeing, are there any signs of money really being transferred or any big changes in this anywhere? Yeah, I can, I'm an example basically, Croatia is an example in that sense, how I didn't basically introduce myself, I forgot, I don't care in many cases. I only said I'm not an artist, you know, but who am I basically. I'm a manager, I'm a researcher, I used to be journalist as well. I work also as an editor and somehow I'm a policymaker as well. I'm a director of Kulturnova Foundation. Kulturnova Foundation is a public institution established by the government of the Republic of Croatia. After the long years advocacy process led by the civil society organization in contemporary arts and culture in Croatia, which 15 years ago came out with the idea of establishing a separate foundation dedicated to their purposes and interests. And after years of advocacy, in that period of time, our current minister of Kulturn in Albanian Korzenek was a general secretary or state secretary, what is the name in Croatia and she recognized the importance of creating of this new arms lines bodies in Croatia. So after years, as I said in 2011, the Republic of Croatia adopted the specific law on Kulturnova Foundation. So what is our main purpose? To provide the grants professional and financial support to non-governmental, non-profit associations in contemporary arts and culture. So we are basically a creation example of the cultural democracy, how it's possible to create another democratic mechanism for providing financial support to different actors in the cultural arena as well. But also is a question and very much discuss in different context in the UK especially where we have this arms lines principle in the financing, but still domination of experts as a one who decided about the financing and the support for the cultural actors. So some of the critiques come also to this aspect in a sense of are you ready and are you able to open decision making process and to create the much more participatory grant making. So involve the peers at least so the people who basically work and be active in the cultural sector and who compete on some point for the some amount of the money and on the other side open decision making process as well for the citizens. So it could be you know some of the example around us and possibility. So thank you. I got to decide to cut myself. Thank you for your attention. One more.