Key Actors of Independent Belarusian Culture: on the Border of Space and Time

Baseline research report

Contents

Among all organizations and initiatives, several main groups, or clusters, can be distinguished. The most prominent of them are local formal and informal initiatives of Belarusian diasporas, which for the most part have a cultural component: their members organize concerts, art master classes, conduct traditional rituals and holidays, literary evenings and much more.

Another cluster of cultural organizations and initiatives are public organizations registered abroad or in Belarus and having a cultural contour along with other areas of their activities.
And finally, the third, main cluster of cultural organizations and initiatives are those for which cultural activity is the main type of their activity.

In turn, the last cluster can be divided into organizations that are not associated with specific thematic areas of culture, have a broad agenda relating to the entire cultural field (mass media, media platforms, network organizations seeking to perform facilitation and coordination functions among cultural subjects), and organizations having a clear focus on areas of activity or operating in one (or less often in several) thematic areas of culture.

Among the areas of culture the following can be distinguished:
- Visual arts, crafts and design
- Music
- Literature and publishing
- Cinema
- Theatre and choreography
- National heritage, history and traditional culture

Having analyzed the field of organizations engaged in cultural activities collected as a result of monitoring open data, as well as based on data obtained during expert interviews, we can distinguish the following types of organizations for each cultural area:

1. Cultural area "Visual arts, crafts and design":

• Research and archival platforms for contemporary art
• Virtual museums and media platforms representing works of art
• Organizations involved in art residencies and retreats
• Cultural clubs and communities that have regular live meetings
• Professional organizations that develop and expand art communities and create networks of cultural actors
• Media resources dedicated to visual arts.

2. Сultural area "Theatre and choreography"

• Informal “organizational committee” for the creation of the Belarusian theatre institute
• Production centres
• Theatre groups registered as public organizations
• Theatre groups that do not have formal status
• Children's clubs and studios

3. Cultural area "Cinema"

• Industry network associations of filmmakers
• Private commercial film studios
• Groups of freelance filmmakers (mainly documentarians) with independent media resources
• Cinemas and cinema spaces
• Streaming services and online cinemas
• Media resources dedicated to cinema

4. Cultural area “National heritage, history and traditional culture”

• Institute of national memory (initiative group)
• Organizations involved in conservation and management of tangible heritage
• Organizations involved in archiving and researching traditional Belarusian culture
• Organizations involved in the promotion and popularization of national culture and identity
• Representative offices in political centres dealing with issues of national identity, language, and cultural preservation
• Diaspora communities with a broad pro-Belarusian agenda
• Informal clubs and communities organized around a specific theme (history, language, traditional dances)
• Online platforms for learning the Belarusian language
• Educational organizations in the Belarusian language (school initiatives, kindergartens)

5. Cultural area "Music"

• Musical groups
• Record labels and studios
• Production centres

6. Cultural area "Literature and Publishing"

• Industry network associations of writers and book publishers
• Publishing houses
• Bookstores and libraries
• Online libraries and audiobook platforms
• Literary clubs and communities

Separately, it is worth mentioning organizations and initiatives with a wide profile of cultural activities: numerous art platforms and spaces, as well as several cross-industry network institutions.

Based on the results of interviews with experts and analysis of the field of cultural organizations, it can be noted what types (by form or agenda) of organizations and initiatives are missing today in different areas.

Literature and publishing houses:

• An organization that would organize and maintain a distribution network for Belarusian literature;
• Bureau of literary agents acting as an intermediary between the author and publishing houses and audiences.

Music:

• Organizations that promote Belarusian performers, organize tours, and identify talent among young artists: promotional groups, production centres.

Visual arts:
- Common communication platforms (offline), where it would be possible to simply meet once every six months for non-project communication;
- Profile media, communication channels for disseminating information and increasing the “visibility” of Belarusian culture;
- Cultural embassies: a network of connecting centres in cities of different countries, forming communities around themselves and supporting projects, etc.

Theatre and choreography
- Theatre hubs are full-fledged physical venues abroad used for rehearsals and performances of various theatre groups with the accompanying management and production infrastructure.

Cinema:
- A management and production centre that would search for funding and help promote young authors (perhaps two network structures will be such centres while they are engaged in PR and positioning of films abroad);
- Educational centre in the field of film industry.

National heritage, history and traditional culture
- Resource centres capable of quickly providing a variety of support to grassroots initiatives within Belarus and abroad, producing and promoting their activities;
- A major online player like the Institute of National Memory (there is an initiative group to create one).

During the online survey and interviews with experts, several trends were identified in the interaction and communication of actors of Belarusian independent culture.

On the one hand, both the majority of experts and the majority of participants in the online survey (21 out of 35) are not completely satisfied with the level of existing interaction with other organizations and initiatives of Belarusian culture, and would like to increase it. On the other hand, behind the general desire to increase the degree of interaction there are sometimes very different attitudes.

Among the problems that prevent them from achieving the desired level of interaction with other organizations/initiatives, participants in the online survey most often cited the lack of time and resources in their organization to establish such interaction. This indicates the institutional weakness of organizations, since establishing a constant process of searching for new partners and maintaining connections requires special attention, competence and time. Another common problem - security and trust issues, is also quite understandable in the current environment. In addition, problems in coordinating interests with other organizations and initiatives, the lack of common platforms for ideas, directions for development, searching for new partners, and lack of information about other organizations working in the field of culture are often cited as obstacles to increasing the level of interaction.

Interviews with experts make it possible to identify two more not so trivial problems related to increasing the level of interaction between Belarusian cultural organizations.

Difficulties in communication between cultural figures due to geographical disunity. This circumstance naturally determines the “island” nature of interaction and cooperation among Belarusian cultural actors: inclusion in “their” circles of interaction and communication with a low connection between these circles. Despite the fact that cultural figures communicate well with each other online through regular Zoom conferences or participate in chats where representatives of various cultural organizations and initiatives are gathered, many of them point out the deficiency of such communication and feel the need to expand live communication with each other, including the interaction which is beyond the framework of the implementation of common projects.

Separately, it is necessary to mention the tension created by the ongoing discussions about “those who left” and “those who stayed,” about where Belarusian culture is “made,” and the labels of “collaborators” attached to those cultural figures who continue to work in Belarus, especially in government agencies and cultural institutions or use government infrastructure for their own purposes.

Lack of well-established project and institutional interaction. Despite the fact that experts note the need to expand institutional and project interaction and cooperation, many of them point to the absence of topics or problems that require expanding such cooperation. The point here is also that the common problems and challenges existing in various sectors of culture cannot always be solved by simply joining forces or organizing a network initiative. This is especially true in areas that require large financial investments. At the same time, in many areas of cultural activity network or coalition associations exist or are planned to be created. As an example, we can cite such associations in the field of Belarusian independent cinema as the Belarusian Filmmakers' Network, Belarusian Independent Film Academy, in the field of literature and publishing - the Belarusian Book Institute, the International Union of Belarusian Writers, in the field of theatre - the initiative to create Belarusian Theatre Institute, in the field of national heritage, history and traditional culture - the initiative to create the Institute of National Memory.

In some areas of culture, however, there are real demands and topics in which actors are interested, and, most importantly, which can potentially be resolved by coalition cooperation. Thus, in the Belarusian independent book publishing industry there is clearly a lack of institutions for the distribution of publishing houses’ products, in the music sector we lack production centres and expert rating platforms (such as Tuzin hitoŭ, experty.by).

At the same time, on the level of personal interaction, cultural figures easily find a common language with each other, maintain contacts with each other and, if necessary, easily implement common projects through them. Today this type of cooperation is predominant in the independent cultural sphere. Hence we have the lack of understanding among many experts of the need to create sustainable structures that unite the sector.

It should be noted that today, a full-fledged field of possible communications and interactions is actually the space outside Belarus; organizations and initiatives inside Belarus are poorly included both in discussions and in real processes of coalition and network building. The current conditions make the task of including cultural actors from Belarus in this circulation a separate non-trivial task, since the nature of this inclusion requires non-publicity and special work regulations, which are quite difficult to ensure.

As a relatively new and promising trend in the nature of interaction between Belarusian cultural actors, one can note the expansion of the practices of interdisciplinary and intersectoral collaborations. We are talking about the emergence of projects in which various areas of culture, art and new technologies, etc., are combined in a way that is not typical for the Belarusian cultural sphere.

In the field of organizations and initiatives of Belarusian culture, a number of organizations are operating and developing, striving to perform facilitating and strategic functions for the entire sector of independent Belarusian culture. Such organizations today include the Belarusian Council for Culture, Belarusian PEN. During the online survey, CreateCulture Group, Belarusian Youth Hub, Belarusian Book Institute, and Belarusian Independent Film Academy were also mentioned as network and umbrella organizations.

It is necessary to understand that the perception of this kind of organizations is influenced by patterns characteristic of the perception of leadership by Belarusians, which manifest themselves in a variety of fields (from intellectual to political). One of them is that any initiative to “unite” or mediate relations (in this case, in the sector of cultural organizations) is immediately perceived as an attempt to take the place of leaders or redistribute resources.

Despite the generally positive assessments of the actions of these initiatives, experts point to a number of shortcomings in the activities of such organizations.

First of all, this is a misunderstanding and distrust of the agendas of such organizations against the backdrop of their obvious lack of resources necessary to solve strategic problems. Some cultural actors who have experience in searching for donor support for their activities have the skills to solve such problems and, in general, do not need mediation in obtaining it through these network organizations.

Organizations that do not have such competencies are under the illusion that the “straight path” would be simpler and more effective. Traditionally, any attempt to mediate between donors and grassroots organizations has been viewed with suspicion. In this regard, experts believe, it would be more appropriate to create platforms and consultation centres that would directly connect grant givers and potential applicants for assistance (it is worth mentioning that hardly anyone can imagine the mechanism of operation of such platforms).

In addition, according to experts, while claiming to facilitate a wide variety of areas of cultural activity, the approaches of network associations often do not take into account the specifics of each area of culture. This lack of competencies makes it difficult to find a common language with professionals in a particular field, and also does not allow dialogue at the proper professional level with prestigious foreign organizations, festivals, experts, etc.

“Politicization of culture”, according to some experts, is also one of the obstacles in interaction with large network associations today. After 2020, Belarusian culture entered a new stage of development, however, in this context, what is “in demand” is primarily the “culture of protest” and everything that is in one way or another connected with current events, repressions, or narrowly understood national content. Network organizations also often focus on this. This excludes or significantly limits the inclusion of non-political content or the content without a clearly expressed national component in their agendas. Such “excluded” areas of culture include modern visual arts.

The inclusion and interest in the work of the above-mentioned network associations is also limited by the fact that some of them are directly associated with political democratic centres or are labelled “extremist.” This circumstance scares off many cultural players, especially those who collaborate with Belarusian creators and organizations located in Belarus.

In general, a number of experts talk about the need to create some kind of platform that allows cultural figures to present their achievements and projects, especially for players who are not the most well-known in the media. The function of navigation in the field of Belarusian cultural organizations, as well as possible partners, platforms, funds and donors in different countries, also remains in demand.

Having analyzed the results of an online survey and interviews with experts, in which we asked them to talk not only about their organization, but also in general about the situation in the field of culture that they represent, we can identify the following general trends in the field of culture:

1. Explosive in 2020 and still continuing, albeit in an inertial mode, is the growth of interest in Belarusian culture, issues of identity, and language among Belarusians themselves.

2. Gradual reorientation of cultural organizations and Belarusian cultural figures towards foreign consumers, and not just towards the Belarusian diaspora and audience within Belarus. Active development of foreign cultural markets, marketplaces, etc.

3. The gradual depoliticization of Belarusian independent culture (this applies primarily to emigration, which all these three years has been charged with a protest context and an engaged consumer; now fatigue is gradually accumulating among both the consumer and the culture figures themselves). However, despite the fact that the “explosion” of interest in everything Belarusian against the backdrop of the political processes of 2020, including the Belarusian culture of the “past period,” is likely to decline, one can still observe a tangible demand for such cultural topics, especially abroad (it’s harder to register anything inside Belarus).

4. Deepening separation and isolation of two cultural situations: inside Belarus and outside it.

5. Inside Belarus, the ongoing repression and vagueness of legal, institutional and political conditions sets a special mode of existence for an independent culture - semi-underground or partisan. The cultural field emerging in Belarus has its own characteristics in the formation of communication ties.

6. The gradual rebuilding of an independent cultural field outside Belarus in the form in which it was in Belarus before 2020 (“NGO forms and appearance”). With the difference that in Belarus independent actors sought to somehow adapt to the institutional conditions of the Belarusian state, and now they are forced to adapt to the conditions of other (mostly democratic) states. At the same time, quite significant changes (“distortions”) are undergoing in areas that are “difficult to move” abroad, in which the connection with authentic Belarusian material is important (primarily tangible and intangible heritage, protection of cultural and natural monuments). However, even in these areas there are new forms that allow us to somehow act and develop separately from artifacts (for example, the platform for audio guides to Belarusian attractions).

7. A vague idea of the future and confusion still exist, as well as the inability to make long-term plans and strategies.

8. As the main negative trends, not only repression and the purge of the field of cultural organizations and initiatives in Belarus are often noted, but also the processes of Russification and expansion of Russian culture.

The new conditions Belarusian culture exists in today provide a lot of opportunities for the organizations’ development and growth, but they also create obstacles on the way to the formation of new initiatives. Experts noted the main ones.

1. Financial difficulties. During the online survey, lack of funding was most often cited as a problem both for the sphere of Belarusian culture as a whole, and as the most pressing problem facing specific organizations. In addition to the lack of funding and the lack of infrastructural support necessary for many cultural practices, there are also difficulties in navigating the field of grant support and not knowing where exactly to turn for the implementation of a particular project. In addition, experts say that foreign support is more focused on other social endeavors of Belarusians: supporting the media, pro-democratic political activities, etc. Many creative teams and organizations, responding to this challenge, are attempting to go beyond grant funding - looking for commercial niches and development strategies.

2. The difficulty is maintaining the Belarusian context. The ongoing reorientation towards foreign audiences and cultural markets in many areas of Belarusian culture inevitably leads to a decrease in the production of cultural products with a pronounced Belarusian component, in a language understandable to Belarus, etc.

3. Management and promotion. In an online survey, the lack of effective management ranked second in the ranking of problems. Experts note a lack of competence in promotion and self-representation among cultural figures and initiatives, which slows down integration into foreign cultural circulation. Here we would add that often platforms and projects designed to help cultural figures promote their products (pitchings, etc.) do not provide a real opportunity to “connect” with potential investors.

4. In that part of the independent Belarusian culture that is being formed and developed outside Belarus, there have been no active leaders of cultural niches who would unite or infrastructurally connect (through activities and solving specific problems) certain areas of cultural activity. There are initiatives like the Belarusian Council for Culture, United Transitional Cabinet Representative for National Revival, but they perform other functions (develop documents and strategies).

5. Difficulties in arranging a full-fledged professional infrastructure for the production, demonstration, and distribution of Belarusian cultural products outside Belarus. Despite the fact that in recent years many platforms and art spaces have appeared and are developing abroad, often both their technical and personnel resources do not allow the development of a full-fledged cultural process in them. This is especially true for such areas as theatre, contemporary art, etc. As a rule, representatives of these areas have to turn to non-Belarusian venues, galleries, halls, theatre stages, etc. available in these countries. as part of the implementation of one-time performances, projects and exhibitions.

Is everything so terrible and hopeless for Belarusian organizations working in the cultural field in Belarus and abroad? Experts and researchers have counted at least 6 important aspects of work that can bear fruit today and provide a positive push for development.

- Access to an international audience, inclusion in international cultural markets, the opportunity to master world cultural experience and fit Belarusian culture into the pan-European context;

- The production of Belarusian cultural content has increased significantly since 2020, and this circumstance sets the prospects for the expansion of bearers of the Belarusian identity (language, nationally oriented people), however, at the moment there are no major players who could take on the role of producing this entire array, output for large audiences, etc.

- Development of those areas in which there are obvious shortcomings in various areas of culture now: first of all, these are infrastructural elements for a number of areas (hubs, distribution systems), cultural management and criticism and rating systems.

- Maintaining connections with cultural actors within Belarus by including them in cultural production at those stages that allow compliance with safety requirements. Combating the stigma of cultural actors and figures who remain in Belarus and use the state infrastructure of institutions, symbolic and informal support.

- Expansion (mainly in online and distant forms) of the Belarusian distribution network of Belarusian literature, cinema, and other cultural products created in other countries today. Since “delivery” and “demonstration” of this kind of product in physical form is quite risky today, and can be a matter for individual enthusiasts, problems can be systematically solved through electronic editions of new books, a larger number of channels and resources collecting “new” books, film and theatrical criticism, etc.

- Systematic research and monitoring of cultural development processes and their impact on Belarusian and foreign audiences. Monitoring the processes of Russification in Belarus, developing new strategies to counter it.