Cari tutti
L'incontro di tre giorni a Berlino è stato molto interessante, specialmente da parte delle persone di origine straniera, tanti artisti, filmakers, attivisti, promotori culturali. La presentazione della rete ha fatto un bel effetto, la Rete G2 è unica nel suo genere, e la capacità sviluppata nel piano culturale e visivo è una cosa che è molto piaciuta. La domanda che mi pongo: perché non si fanno esercizi di questo tipo in Italia? Non so se quello che abbiamo provato a proporre avrà delle dirette conseguenze nelle politiche culturali in Europa, ma l'interesse c'è e le conclusioni sono state molto simili in tutti i gruppi di lavoro. Rete G2 ha fatto parte di Dimensioni Internazionali, Transnazionali e Globali: nuovi forme di narrazione ed esposizione "International, Transnational and Global Dimensions: New Frameworks for Narrating and Displaying"
Vi aggiungo il testo del nostro workshop in inglese, tra poco arriverà anche tradotto in italiano. Ho fatto dei contatti con persone che si occuperanno di organizzare iniziative a Istanbul 2009 _ Capitale Europea della Cultura e anche con la Rete Europea di Musei. Quindi speriamo di avere un po' di visibilità internazionale. Una richiesta costante è stata quella d'introdurre un po' di testi in inglese nel sito, così la gente può conoscerci a livello internazionale. Ho iniziato a tradurre la presentazione della Rete, se qualcuno ha idee o testi che dovrebbero essere tradotti per questa sezione fatemi sapere.
Un abbraccio a tutti, invierò delle foto all'indirizzo mail, visto che non so come postarli nel forum.
Rosa
Segue informe in inglese
---------
International, Transnational and Global Dimensions: New Frameworks for Narrating and Displaying
Session 1
• An interesting combination of artists, filmmakers, cultural promoters, museum representatives and academics shaped our group, this made the meetings very lively and discussions very prosperous.
• After the first session in which we had the opportunity to share and show our work, our institutions and projects, we could start to give some hints, on what should be showed or how could it be told.
• An important issue that was constantly revised and thought of, was the individual narrative and how to place it in a context, versus a collective narrative and how to prevent it to be a generalization or the narrative of a national identity only.
• The word or term Migrant was also challenged, when talking about the definitions or identity marks imposed to people with foreign origins and their children. This questioning came across after trying to define which community, when and for how long should be represented in a Migration Museum, if any was to be built or designed.
Sessions 2 &3
• We spent most of the second day, sessions two and three trying to find out wether there is the need to create Migration Museums in which to showcase those narratives from immigration that have been relegated in the history of Europe.
• And those narratives: Who was going to produce them? Who would choose them? Who would edit and decide where and how to produce them? Who would come and see them? What would be the audience?
• It was interesting to see how some of the artistic work that is being produced by artists in the conference is an attempt to outreach communities around Europe, which are the story holders and possible contributors for Migration Museums. Artists start working as enablers and facilitators of these processes of collecting information and communicating it.
• When trying to find definitions on what a Migration Museum should be like some interesting words and terms popped out of the group:
a device / an art platform
• During the afternoon session we tried to come out with a further definition of the kind of space and methods to be though of when talking about migration narratives.
• The translational dimension of Migration was a main concern in order to talk about a global museum or a global dimension of a museum.
• The need of building partnership processes with migrant communities, was also emphasized at this point of the discussions.
CONCLUSIONS
• As a methodology to present the results of our work we decided to come to the final session holding three proposals that portray our questions and the solutions or further analysis we would like to think of.
Participation was a key aspect when thinking of all the phases of projecting, designing, building and presenting a migration museum.
Although we were about to tear down all museums, at the end of the discussion we all agreed that a Migration Museum could be made only if:
• A Migration Museum should transfer the power of its institution to the people. Immigrant communities become primarily givers rather than primarily takers. A different construction of narratives is promoted in this process and enables empowerment and direct involvement of the people. • (This includes researchers, curators, and all aspects of governance)
• A Migration Museum could have the role or collecting, archiving, preserving and become a custodian of narratives, objects and artefacts of heritage and the history of migrant communities.
• A global Museum or a museum dealing with a globalized issue as Migration should try to “slice into movement”, which means to represent a cross - section of all the different aspects of Migration: social, historical, economic, political, international.
|