Marie Rosenkranz is a cultural scientist and a Phd-candidate at Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen, Germany. In her interview she talks about European cultural policy, the visual language of the EU and why artists become political in times of Brexit.

Béton Bleu: Hello Marie, before we talk about the visual language of the EU let’s start with terminology. What is the textbook definition of ‘European Cultural Policy’? 

Marie Rosenkranz: Cultural policy is the regulation of the cultural sector. European cultural policy on the other hand is somewhat more difficult to define: It’s the EU member states that have the power to shape their cultural policy. Not the EU. In countries like Germany it’s even a matter for the federal states’ legislation. So the scope for action within the framework of a "European cultural policy" is therefore relatively small for the EU. 

BB: In which areas can the European Union shape cultural policy? 

MR: The official formulation is: The EU complements, promotes and coordinates the cultural policies of the member states. This does not only sound vague, it clearly is. The EU can for example complement national cultural policy with new forms of international cooperation. In my view, the EU should therefore connect cultural institutions, enable an exchange of competences, for example between artistst, and promote international cultural projects. Which it already does. 

BB: With its most famous cultural programme, Creative Europe. 

MR: Yes but unfortunately this programme ends in 2020. That means that the EU's cultural policy, together with the EU's financial framework, is always up for debate. Even though there is the phrase "you can't fall in love with a single market", which the EU founding father Jacques Delors supposedly said, culture has to be renogiated constantly.

BB: Many from the cultural field don’t know the EU Commissioner for Culture neither: It’s the Bulgarian Mariya Gabriel. Only after massive protests the word “culture” was added to her departmental description. 

MR: Even I tended to rather follow the debate where Ursula van der Leyen's formulation "Promoting Our European Way of Life" raised a fundamental question: Is there such a thing as European culture? Debates like this lead you always in an unpleasant direction. There is always someone that brings up “a closed cultural area” that should be that “European cultural area”. But this closed space does not exist. It has never existed. 

BB: But even the concept-paper of "European Way of Life" does not mention culture. It focuses on internal and external security, the rule of law and migration. Maybe culture is not important to the current EU-commission? 

MR: Well, the title “European Way of Life” clearly implies that external influences could endanger Europe. Or that there is an essentialist core of a European culture that is at stake with migration. The implicit subtitle seems to be: Close the external borders!
But if you close the borders, you should shut the Internet down as well. Mrs von der Leyen's formulation was a gift to the right. Hence, I am sceptical. Thinking of European culture in terms of common European experiences sounds more exciting and productive to me. In times of crises such as Brexit, paradoxically, something like a temporary European public sphere always emerges. 

So a crisis strenghtens the European Public?

MR: The word pair culture and Europe can have a positive connotation: Europe is a reality lived by many in their everyday lives, Europe is held together by personal connections. Culture - understood as everyday culture - has therefore become a central pillar of unity in Europe. The value of Europe is always recognized when the arts are affected by political intervention. For example, when the freedom of the arts or freedom of expression is restricted. Then the EU’s rule of law comes into action, as we have seen in the Eastern European member states.

BB: Currently, you are doing research at the German Zeppelin University on how cultural actors participate in the debate of the future of the EU. You take the Brexit as a starting point for these cultural interventions. Why? 

MR: The debate about Brexit is a debate about Europe. It is interesting that a particularly large number of artists have intervened with various creative means. This form of artistic engagement in political protest movements is a global trend. This process produces a lot of images and metaphors. I am particularly interested in how this trend is developing and how it can become important beyond the Brexit-debate: Does politics have to be more creative? What responsibility does art take on – willingly or not – in this respect? How are political decision-makers responding to this? These are the questions that I am trying to answer in my research.

BB: Ultimately, the Brexit was the result of the basic feeling of many people that the EU is a danger to 'their nation'. 

MR: The EU is currently positioning itself - or rather it has been positioned - as an alternative to re-nationalization. This divide, nation vs. Europe, has been newly reopened again. I say 'again' consciously because 'never again Auschwitz' was actually the founding idea of Europe. This anti-right-framing, this "Europe is a protection against the new shift to the right" positioning, is a great opportunity for the EU. Europe intervenes when member states are on the brink of a constitutional collapse. At the same time, this is not easy to implement when the right has a increasing number of seats in the EU Parliament and shapes European policy. 

BB: For many people, even the young generation, the EU is mostly associated with an urban, cosmopolitan lifestyle. What about the rest? Is this a communication-mistake made by the EU? 

MR: It's really tricky. I think there is a reason why Ulrike Guérot's draft of a European Republic is so widely debated, where regions play an important role. The European Republic caters to the idea that Europe is an alternative to nationalism, and at the same time it addresses the desire for belonging. Many people associate belonging with their local environment in particular, their city or their region. Guérots idea makes nation states obsolete because cities and regions work together on a European level. For her, there should be a ‘Europe of the regions’.

BB: Let’s talk about the visual language of the EU. Many brands have tried to dynamize the visual language around the EU, make it younger. They created EU hoodies for example. Which role does communication play in the EU?

MR: This re-branding is a real trend, especially around the European elections. I mean, isn't it also a kind of re-branding that we are here at Béton Bleu talking about Europe? And the interview later appears well-designed on Instagram and is read on the smartphone? In 2019, many designers wanted to make Europe fashionable. This is above all an expression that there is a target group for whom Europe is a statement they are ready to wear. Maybe even a symbol of resistance against nationalism. The only thing is, that symbols are ambiguous. If you walk around with an EU hoodie during a debate on the migration crisis, it could also stand for Eurocentrism or the 'Fortress Europe'. Symbols change.

BB: This sounds as if the EU cannot be criticised and rebranded at the same time. Can’t we do both?

MR: I think you can. Wolfgang Tillmans, a German photographer, tried. Together with Rem Koolhaas and others, he organized a competition of ideas at the European Forum on Culture in Amsterdam in 2018. He asked creative people and artists to find ways to better communicate EU values. Even though he addressed a massive problem of the EU – namely that its communication needs improvement – he expressed that the EU is something worth protecting. It was not neutral. I find this interesting. Artists usually rarely take such a clear political position. Especially not in the debate surrounding the EU. This implies that something is really at stake at the moment and that artists, especially in times of social media, have an influence that goes beyond the sphere of art.

BB: But Tillmann's work has also been criticised for only appealing to these young, styled people in cities wearing the EU hoodie, as mentioned above.

MR: Yeah, of course. His last campaign for the EU elections was discredited for addressing only a very small group through a very narrowed ‘art world aesthetic’. I think that's an understandable observation, but it’s not necessarily a valid criticism. It still seems important to launch such initiatives, it’s important to try out new political practices.
One still can reflect it critically: Politics must not become exclusively a lifestyle product. That would always exclude people who live differently. Who designs the European pullovers? It’s high fashion brands such as Souvenir from Berlin or Études from Paris. Maybe that’s a symbol that the European unity is not (yet?) a suitable statement for the masses. Maybe the audience of pro-European art only makes up a very specific part of society.

BB: Let’s suppose it’s not the high fashion brands that produces the EU hoodies, but public institutions. Wouldn’t that be propaganda then?

That's an interesting point. You can see from the EU hoodie debate that the context is always extremely important. Suddenly a flag is wearable clothing! State propaganda, on the other hand, operates with a hidden agenda. It would be propaganda if the images are being systematically used to achieve a hidden political goal. But the EU cannot be depicted on a spectrum of left and right, the EU is just an institutionalised form of international cooperation. So can it carry out propaganda at all? I would say yes, if it gradually adopts a hidden agenda such as neo-liberal economic policy.

BB: The artist Simon Goritschnig said in the last Béton-Bleu interview that for him the EU is a kind of organising tool for the effects of globalisation. How do you see that?

MR: That’s an interesting thought. I am fascinated by political metaphors in general. I hope that the EU manages to become an effective tool against the disruptive effects of globalisation. I think this is one of the most important questions of our time.

BB: Thank you for the talk!

Interview: Ana-Marija Cvitic

(C) 23/03/2020