We are more than pretty paintings

Toni Attard gets the opportunity to reflect on the contemporary relationship between art and politics

A few days ago I was invited by the European Parliament office in Malta to attend an unusual event at the European Parliament in Brussels. The occasion was artistic and the purpose was political. Six politicians delivered a few words about art, diversity and politics. MEPs spoke on our behalf as curators, visitors and custodians of the European Parliament’s art collection, as works by Pawl Carbonaro, Kenneth Zammit Tabona, Celia Borg Cardona, Theresa Sciberras, James Vella Clark and Madeleine Gera, together with works from Slovenia and Slovakia, joined the already 500-strong collection.

As expected, I was escorted under high security into the Parliament building to join a small gathering of eurocrats, artists and politicians.

The Parliament house is not designed to be a gallery or museum and evidently, unlike what was being proposed some time ago in Malta, it cannot be both. Yet, the house of European democracy representing 500 million Europeans needed contemporary art to promote the cultural output of European countries and to reaffirm the European Parliament’s belief of unity in diversity. This was in itself the continuation of a long-standing tradition in Europe.

For years, various national parliaments have developed a custom to purchase works of art, resulting in this vast collection that celebrates the creative achievements of European nations. Simone Veil, the President of the first directly elected European Parliament, adopted this tradition at European level. She started the tradition of purchasing and displaying contemporary artworks of the EU member states that are now housed in the Parliament buildings in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg. Some national parliaments have also donated some works to the European Parliament’s art collection.

The Maltese Parliament could not follow such trends as it does not have a collection of its own. In fact, most of the paintings that adorn the offices of our MPs are on loan for free from Heritage Malta. (Incidentally, perhaps it is time to reassess this policy to ensure that such loans are accounted for, and, if of a particular importance, returned as quickly as possible for public enjoyment. Perhaps one should also consider a charged rental fee for upkeep and restoration. And with the advent of a new Parliament building, now might be the time to appoint a curator to purchase contemporary works of art which would not only be an investment in artists and their work but also in the collective manifestation of Malta’s creative expression and its democratic credentials.)

The works from Malta were acquired in 2010, with a budget of €14,625. The great difficulty of such initiatives is to match bureaucratic public administration rules to a selection process set exclusively on aesthetic criteria. The Maltese works were pre-selected by the European Parliament office in Malta assisted by an art enthusiast. An artistic committee currently composed of one quaestor and two EP vice-presidents submits the draft proposal to the College of Quaestors (five quaestors are MEPs elected by their colleagues to deal with administrative matters relating specifically to the members).

The quaestors then make a recommendation to the President of Parliament, who takes the final decision. If given a choice I would always opt for arts experts to select, albeit undemocratically, any acquisitions on the assumption that their choice is based on a value judgment driven by artistic excellence and technique. Politicians cannot underestimate these curatorial skills and they should not assume automatic possession of such expertise.

Interestingly enough this viewing prompted me once more to reflect on the contemporary relationship between art and politics, undeniably one of the most dynamic in the history of art.

In the past 50 years, cultural policies have been shaped on principles that reflect on the type of relationship policymakers envision between the arts and the political arm that governs them. Whether at arms-length, centralised or non-state commitment, various models are challenged by the same issues.

How involved should politicians and bureaucrats be in designing a road map for the creative expression that shapes identities and challenges the status quo? How will the well-proven impact of the arts on economies be dealt with when budget cuts hit countries at a time of recession?

The European Union understands the complexity of this relationship and relies on member states to assume the responsibility for cultural policy. However, with the European agenda running high on matters of sustainability, diversity, innovation and growth, the cultural sector has become a crucial stakeholder. This is why the European Union through the Parliament, Commission and Council are increasingly advocating for an agenda on culture and have approved numerous work plans and programmes to address these priorities.

The 500 paintings and sculptures in the collection are more than just colour to dull walls or a celebration of a founding principle.

The collection should be a constant reminder to the 736 MEPs that their decisions and political action will strongly influence the development of a creative Europe. May these works remind MEPs that the EU is more than coal and steel, we need more than a single market, we are more than mere consumers.

One hopes that the pride and passion in the words of those who spoke at the event, including President Jerzy Buzek and MEP Simon Busuttil, are a reassurance of goodwill to champion the call of the Europe-wide arts advocacy campaign (www.wearemore.eu) for a bold and daring culture programme for 2014-2020 that will invest in Europe’s creative future through cutting edge artistic and cultural experimentation around our common European concerns and aspirations.