The brief story of Mr. K. (Romeo Kodra)

Mr. K. He was born in Albania in 1952, but his origins are Bosnian.
The Muslim family of his mother came to Albania (or what was later known as Albania) around 1878 from Nikšić after the city was taken by Montenegrins. These people, as part of the Ottoman nobility, after the Berlin Treaty thought was not a good idea to remain in Nikšić and wanted to go to Istambul. K. does not know why they change their mind and chose Albania instead. But what he remembers from his mother’s parents is that they were “very aristocratic, Ottoman version” and did not like to mix with “ordinary people”. They did not speak any Albanian for generations but only Bosnian, at home, and outside Turkish or Arab with the other Albanians. Actually, is K. that taught to read and write Albanian to his mother, when he went to the first grade.
K.’s father came from Bosnia to Albania later, after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. He was 12 and with his younger brother came to Albania with the maternal uncle from Čapljina who left Bosnia with his family and the nephews. The father of K. and his brother were orphans of both parents when they left Sarajevo by the end of 1914. Because of the sudden death of their parents and the general tense situation in the city, their uncle sold as soon as he could everything the nephews possessed, and the rest – a house in Baščaršija and some animals – donated to the vakuf/waqf of the Muslim Community of Sarajevo.
When K. emigrated from Albania to Yugoslavia by the end of 1990, he was amazed by the welcoming of the Muslim Community of Sarajevo, who knowing his origins and parents almost immediately made of him the accountant of the vakuf as well as donated him an old mud-brick house in ulica Megara in front of the library on the opposite bank of Miljacka. Yet, the new-old house of K. was destroyed by the bombs of Serbs in 1992. That mud-brick house in ulica Megara, still today, shows what the war in Sarajevo was like because remains exactly as it was in the summer of 1992.

Will There Be a Russian Invasion of Ukraine? A few days ago I was talking with K. and his wife about the situation in Ukraine. K.’s wife, watching non-stop the Italian TV, which from the beginning of the COVID19 follow strickly the script of Orson Welles’ The War of the Worlds, is very susceptible and is scared of Putin. I tried to tranquilize her by saying that Putin is not stupid and there will be no war. Then, K. said that the people living in Kyiv as usual, enjoying parties and drinking, reminded him of Sarajevo of March 1992, when the people although Yugoslavia was burning still could not believe that there could be war among “brothers”. K. did not add anything else but, to be honest, was the first time I started to think that Putin is stupid.
The next day I saw a video on YouTube, which is deleted now (who knows why!), where Lavrov was smiling at the question of a journalist on whether there will be any Ukrainian invasion, after which I was sure that the stupids’ mother is always pregnant.

K.’s wife asked often me these days about the situation in Finland – because she (of course) heard the Italian TV saying something about the risks of war in Finland – and I always tried to assure her that people here are not stupid to debate with another stupid (Putin) menacing them not to do something (joining the NATO) that they did not care to do. However, although I thought Finland was a knowledge-based economy and its people with the highest levels of education in the world as well as the happiest people in the world, a few days ago a petition signed by at least 50.000 people asked the parliament to discuss the possibility of Finland joining NATO. In other words, instead of showing an alternative to the world, based on the power of knowledge and education as opposed to the stupidity of the war, Finland decided to show that, even here, the stupids’ mother is always fertile and pregnant.
And, as if it were not enough, to the stupidity Finland, as EU and most of the western countries, added perfidy and cowardice by sending light weapons to the sieged Ukrainians to contrast the MIGs and nuclear power of Putin. In addition, to me, it is as ridiculous as one who, in wanting to help Native Americans, could have given them bows and arrows to defend themselves and fight the colonial forces.

The Same Old K.’s Story. But as K. says there will be no winners, but, as always in every war, only profiteers and victims. I wanted to provoke him and when talking this week I mentioned that “one of the first countries to send arms to Ukrainians is The Netherlands” and soon will send their “DUTCHBATS“. K. does not use dirty words but this is one of those cases when he does not spare me and starts to remember and tells me the story of his “two years under the bombs” in Sarajevo that I already know in detail. But he is almost 70 now, and I let him enjoy telling me how “people change in war”, how “they seem like automata, pale and with glassy eyes”.
The best part of his story is when he recalls the nights spent in the basement of the Muslim Community of Baščaršija. There he used to sleep after his mud-brick house came down after a massive bombing of summer 1992. In the basement, he could meet every kind of person, from Alija Izetbegović, Omer Behmen, and Haris Silajdžić to desperate orphans or Muslim Mujahideen volunteers from all around the world. One of these lasts was a man of Iranian origins who came in 1993 with his 16-year-old son “to free the country of the Muslim brothers of Sarajevo”. K. was very enthusiastic, especially considering the desperate situation and the lack of help from the western countries. He saw that Iranian father and son with immense admiration and deep down inside himself was envious as well as ashamed because he could not imagine doing the same for his “brothers”, not only from Iran but also Bosnia, although he is of Bosnian origins, practically a Bosnian himself. However, the most significant part of K.’s story, although he does not want to admit it or sometimes forget it, is when he witnesses a scene worthy of Danis Tanović’s No Man’s Land: one night the Iranian father goes to a window where a 20-year-old man was serving as a guard during the night shift and wants to help him by saying “If you want you can rest a little brother, I will be guarding in your place.” Then the young Bosnian says, “Thanks. But just don’t call me brother because my brother is in those mountains” indicating the Serbian positions and intending that his brother was with the Serbs bombing the city.

The Cinematic Vaccine of Albanian Socialist Realism II (Part I). (Romeo Kodra)

Invisible World: An Analysis.

Botë e padukshme (Invisible World, 1987) is the last film of the director – and screenwriter, in collaboration with Vath Koreshi, on this occasion – Kristaq Dhamo. He was honored, the same year, with the title of People’s Artist, the highest recognition for an artist of Socialist Popular Republic of Albania.
Following the career and artistic work of Dhamo is very interesting as he is one of the most talented Albanian film directors as well as the author of the first long feature film produced in Albania, entitled Tana (1958).
Moreover, being Dhamo for years the artistic director of the Kinostudio “Shqipëria e Re” – and consequently a good example of “trained professional working for the government” (Socialist Realism in Soviet Literature, Katerina Clark) – his Invisible World is also a good thermometer to measure the pressure of the official ideology on cinematography, as well as understand the creative spatiality of the Albanian cinematography, its orientation and developments within socialist realism during the last years of the state socialism (ended in 1991).


The Theme. The theme of the film is, again, as in the case of the first short feature film Fëmijët e saj (1957) which I analyzed last year, the immunization of the Albanians to resist infectious diseases through vaccination. Yet, here, in the case of Invisible World, the immunization does not regard the programmatic health policies of the Labour Party of Albania, but it is used as a metaphor used by the director to represent a tranche de vie of the capital city, Tirana, of 1987 (this film on “the autovaccine” echoes in the mind of an Albanian of the time the quasi-total isolation of the country from the world, as well as the Party’s autarchic/self-sufficiency policies when the main slogan was “Të çajmë bllokadën me forcat tona!” / Let’s break out the blockade with our own forces!).


Story Concept. Based only on the story concept, Invisible World for its esprit engagé can be classified as a classical movie of socialist realism:

Neither the drama nor the novel has so far produced a sufficiently vivid depiction of Soviet woman, who is playing such an important part in all spheres of socialist construction. It is difficult to explain why dramatists have even tried to create as few feminine roles as possible. Although woman’s social status in our country is equal to man’s, and women have given full proof of the variety of their gifts and their capacity for work, this equality is very often and in many respects formal and external. […] This old standing and shameful debt of history to one-half of the world’s population should be paid off by men of our country first of all, so as to set an example to all other men in the world. Here, too, literature should try to depict women’s work and mentality, so that the attitude towards women should rise above the accepted philistine attitude, which has been borrowed from the lower animals. […]
Every citizen has full liberty to develop his capacities, gifts and talents. The only demand presented to the individual is that he should be honest in his attitude to the heroic work of creating a classless society.

Soviet Literature, Address Delivered to the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers, August 17, 1934
by Maksim GOR’KII (I am quoting from Gor’kii and not from Alfred Uçi’s Estetika, Jeta, Arti (1970) for example which theoretically could have been more pertinent and closer to the Albanian context because in Dhamo’s work these themes – articulated also in films such as Tana or Vitet e para (1965) / The First Years or Brazdat (1973) / Furrows – anticipate Uçi’s book).

Thus, the story concept of Invisible World regards a woman, the physician-researcher Besmira (Roza Anagnosti). When she is trying to develop her capacities, gifts, talent, and thinks has made it, an involuntary but kept hidden human error in the laboratory of her assistant Ilona (Eva Alikaj) by contaminating the ampules destroys all Besmira’s experimental research on “the autovaccine”. Another team of experts headed by Iljaz (Robert Ndrenika), her former professor, replaces Besmira, but other hidden concatenations of events bring to light the invisible world of Tirana’s society, especially the “elite” and its raising “petty bourgeoise” phenomena during the last years of state socialism.
Well, not all the invisible world of the capital city, not all its “elite”, as can be seen by the schematic role of the Minister (Andon Qesari) which is conformed as someone that follows the cristal limpid and infallible Party’s indications, as a sort of open-minded administrator interested in research progress and consequently results of the government. So, this film is against the petty bourgeoise phenomena of the elite but not all the elite, which here excludes the government members and the Central Committee for obvious reasons.


The Music. The soundtrack is the work of Aleksandër Peçi. As extradiegetic elements accompanying the entry credits his first notes set the dramatic tonality, that will characterize not only the refrain but the whole soundtrack and consequently the film. This dramatic tonality of the first notes grows gradually (during the entry credits it is immediately enforced by the first diegetic element, the sound of the rain) but never releases. The lack of release (that will be echoed also by the ending of the film) creates one of the first examples where the listener-viewer of the film is left in front of an undefined suspension, a paradoxical paralysis in and of transition (societal, political, cultural, etc.) that will be a recognizable trait of the Albanian art and cinema of the following years lasting up to the present days.
And it is this sense of undefined waiting, attendance of something that will happen which opens up new but undefined territories, as a sort of creative space where – potentially – expression (being individual or collective) spatiates and defines its spatiality within the cinema of socialist realism. It is again this suggestive dramatic sense of openness towards the unknown and undefined that maybe can explain what Alfred Uçi meant with “the socialist realism is broad enough”, which, without giving examples similar to Invisible World or Brazdat of Kristaq Dhamo, visibly appear inconsistent and/or contradictory (the critique of “lack[ing] of Albanian examples” to Uçi’s work were highlighted by the director of the Publishing House “8 Nëntori”, Kristo Sharra, since 1974, in a letter to the Central Committee):

In the struggle against any kind of schematic interpretation of the method of socialist realism, our artists and writers have contemptuously rejected the infamous slogan of modern revisionists for a “limitless realism”, which aims to rehabilitate and recognize the citizenship right to the bourgeois decadentism. Being not a rigid scheme but a creative method, socialist realism is not an amorphous, indeterminate thing. Being so defined, having such a normative character that does not stand any poisoning grass, any manifestation of modern revisionist decadentism in its surroundings, our art of socialist realism is at the same time broad enough to foster and stimulate the flourishing of the creative individuality, originality and stylistic diversity of every artist and writer who puts it consciously, passionately and sincerity his mastery in the service of the revolution.

Estetika, Jeta, Arti (The Aesthetics, the Life, the Art), Alfred Uçi.


The First (Three) Images. The film starts with entry credits overlapping upon two consecutive images that consist in rotating zoom-in on microbes, photographed through a microscope, which create a spiral vertigo effect. These images as a perfect counterposition bring to mind the famous images of Tana, not the “kiss”, the first and only in Albanian socialist realism, but the images of the main character rotating in the hands of her lover where are seen combined the rotating image of Tana with the background the fertile wheat fields and her lover with the background of a limpid sky.

The images of microbes are followed by another zoom-in, without rotation this time, on a quasi-Godardian photograph showing a laboratory from outside of a transparent window-roof where the main character, in the late evening, is still working, looking through the microscope lenses.

Therefore, it is the main character, Besmira, that is looking through the microscope lenses and perceives the vertiginous effects as consequences of hard-working up until the late hours of the evening. And considering that the main positive character in socialist realism usually transmits the idea and the point of view of the author/director, it is clear that the vertiginous effects of the rotating microscopic images of microbes are also perceived by Kristaq Dhamo as a consequence of going beyond the limpid and clear image of the new socialist man. Dhamo’s courage to investigate and experiment through the cinematic medium going beyond the limpid image of the new socialist man could also be interpreted as taking a high risk of “incorrect coding and decoding”, a risk of “death”, a “truly aesthetic experience of terror” (“The Typology of the Nonexistent” from The Total Art of Stalinism, Boris Groys).


The Opening Scene. The first scene shows a television, which transmits the NEWS. The concrete on-air chronicle regards a ceremony, “organized by the Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of Health, and the Rectorate of Tirana’s University”, awarding with “The Prize of The Republic” some physicians and pedagogues “for their scientific and pedagogical works”.

Firstly, it is important to mention that in Albania during the time of State Socialism there was only one TV channel, transmitting from 6pm to 10.30pm, where two hours of the overall program were dedicated to three NEWS editions (6-6.15; 8-8.30; 10.15-10.30).

Secondly, it is important to notice that the chronicle used by Kristaq Dhamo is not an original document taken from RTSH, as he often used to do in other films (es. Furtuna, Qortimet e Vjeshtës, etc., have WWII cinematic/cine-journals and photographic images taken from the Central State Archive). So, the specific news service, made specially by Dhamo for the film, starts by showing the Minister of Health (the Government, the State) distributing the awards. But it is a strange service this one because we see the camera the supposed TV operator zooming-out, which is not part of the visual expression for the NEWS of RTSH. Therefore, this zoom-out can be interpreted as an intention of the director to highlight for the viewer the importance of taking the distance from the logic of awards and the massmediatic notoriety.

In a country such as Albania, where the Zhdanovian practice of journalism (“our journals, whether they are scientific or literary, cannot be apolitical” – The Central Committee Resolution on the Journals ZVEZDA and LENINGRAD, August 14, 1946, Andrei Zhdanov) was the official credo, this positioning of Dhamo in maintaining the distances from propagandistic positivism (during state socialism there were several awards and recognition of merits for the hard workers at every level of working and social life emulating the model of Stakhanov celebrated in all massmediatic, artistic, and cultural production) is very significant to understand his general “worldview” of the time.

After the television, the camera, of the film operator this time, focuses on Iljaz entering the room where his wife is watching TV. Iljaz follows interested the news of the awards, where one of the awarded professionals is his colleague prof. Sokrat Talo, and goes near to the window outside of which there is a candy shop (ëmbëltore) with a faulty blinking light sign. Iljaz asks his wife if the heat is on. “Yes, it is” she replies “there are 22 degrees!”. Iljaz says that maybe he has some shivering. Bothered by candy shop’s faulty blinking light, he closes the curtain of the window.

What the viewer does not know yet is that the shivering of Iljaz, triggered by the television news of the awards of his colleagues, is caused by envy, competitiveness, careerism.

ARTS PROMOTION CENTER FINLAND – TAIKE’s openness and expertise in decision-making and the “cauliflower trust”. (Romeo Kodra)

The Webinar. A few weeks ago I participated in a webinar where two members of ARTS PROMOTION CENTER – TAIKE (Hanna Susitaival & Henri Terho) thoroughly presented and shared information regarding the new open calls for grants and subsidies. Yet, although the information was detailed I could not find anything new to help me ameliorate my four or five unsuccessful applications of the last year. So, I raised two issues.

The first was a provocation but strictly based on concrete facts. “Do you know that according to TAIKE’s eligibility criteria Vincent van Gogh, if he were alive, cannot be supported? And, considering that van Gogh died more than 120 years ago, don’t you think the TAIKE’s criteria are not very innovative?”

These are the eligibility criteria of the Project Grant Open Call 2021 but also of the “mobility” and “diversity” calls. The screenshot is taken from (accessed 4/11/2-21)

The second issue, which is related to the first, was also based on concrete facts. “Considering that TAIKE’s does not give feedback to justify the decisions, how can I understand what I am doing well or wrong when I am writing a new application and how can I understand that the expert who evaluated my application is expert enough for the task? How can TAIKE guarantee to the taxpayers that there is no cronyism or corruption or, as in Albania, pure money laundering when there is no transparency in decision-making? I have noticed that there are people in Finland working in universities with their important academic titles, that are at the same time involved in politics, and have been granted from private and public institutions (TAIKE included), which for me demonstrates at least conflict of interest or even worst. So, what I wanted to know is how can TAIKE guarantee its expertise, openness, and transparency in decision-making?

The answers of the two experts were pertinent but cannot help anyone to ameliorate the quality of the future applications, which I think should be a concern for a center that is supposed to promote (promovère, move forward) the arts in Finland; to demonstrate the quality of its institutional expertise; to guarantee the openness and transparency of decision-making and make sure to avoid contamination from any unethical and/or illicit practices.

Basically, the experts agreed with the issues and admitted that there are some problems but also highlighted the independence of the decision-makers (not only of the experts of TAIKE but also its regional representatives as well as independent experts that evaluate the application). However, although one can understand and believe in the sincerity of the experts, it is hard to demonstrate TAIKE’s operational ethics. Firstly, because TAIKE – considering its legal framework – is a so-called Executive Agency and is directly under the control and influenced by the decisions and policies of the executive/government. So, to call it independent when TAIKE depends form the government is a contradiction in terms. And secondly, because there are no publicly known indicators through which can be evaluated TAIKE’s independence in decision-making. In other words, nowhere, on the website at least, are written clear indicators to measure the effective evaluation, expertise, openness, transparency, and independence of TAIKE. (It would be interesting to know if these indicators are mentioned in TAIKE’s Strategy or Statute.)

The experts of TAIKE highlighted also the fact that “the evaluators are artists themselves” and there is “empathy” in evaluating the applications of their colleagues. The romantic guy inside me appreciates it very much and thanks sincerely. However, the rational guy inside me does not automatically understand how can the empathy of the evaluators ameliorate the future application? Moreover, living in a period and a country where neoliberal cognitive capitalism is based exclusively on targeting and controlling biopolitically the sensorial processes and psychic perceptions, it is not sure whether the empathy (which, it is important to notice, is not of the institution but of the unpaid experts the institution exploits for the evaluation process) can be considered an appropriate indicator to measure and define the independence, expertise, and transparency in decision-making.

[By the way, I consider a scandal (which I did not know before this webinar) the exploitation of the evaluators, that are “artists themselves”, by a public institution that pretends “to promote the working conditions (työskentelyedellytyksiä) of the artists”. I know that private foundations pay their evaluators, at least Kone Foundation I know for sure does. I do not understand why should private foundations and not public institutions be good examples for the fair treatment of artists. How can artists and the public pretend not only transparency on decision-making but above all fair treatment of artists from private institutions when the public institutions must but do not guarantee these things? Is there, inside TAIKE, any concern regarding this ethical problem?]

The Values. After the webinar, I sent an email to TAIKE to ask whether there is a new strategy released beyond the old one visible on the website. The prompt reply informed me that the definition of the new strategy is ongoing and no clear date is given for its release. So, I tried to read the old strategy 2015-2020 online, in Finnish.

The impression in reading TAIKE’s old strategy 2015-2020 text is something in between reading a marketing and PR text. In addition, the strategy 2015-2020 confirms somehow the logic behind the creation of the Executive Agencies, such as TAIKE, as well as their degenerative weaknesses. But what exactly are the Executive Agencies?

Historically, the Executive Agencies represent the neoliberal institutional alternative response and setups/frameworks which proliferate after the accomplished mission of Thatcherism/Reaganism (lumpenproletariatization through precariousness of the Western working class) and accelerating globalization (based on the free market, intended as deregulation and privatization, government spending reduction, and tax cuts) after the destruction of the Berlin Wall. The first Executive Agencies appeared in the late ’80s early ’90s in the UK but today are also present in the EU (I often happen to work as a freelance evaluator of EACEA) and also in Finland such as in the case of TAIKE. The reason for their existence is the optimization and efficiency of government spending. So, considering that governments pressure for fast results (maximum four years because of the elections), the weakest point of these agencies (especially in the culture sector, which per definition needs time for cultivation) is the simplification of the results into ticking boxes. The logic behind this simplification is to demonstrate how the executive/government maintained the promises of the election campaign. And this is demonstrated only through its Executive Agencies reported results (not processes). But results without transparency of the processes are not good indicators to measure the efficiency of policies.

To make an example, let’s consider the hypothetical case of a party or coalition of parties that wins the election and has made during the election campaign, as part of its cultural policy programme, a promise such as “the integration of migrants” and consequently “democracy” in Finland through art and culture. After winning the elections, the Executive Agency, let say TAIKE in this case, to implement the policies of the government opens a call for “the integration of migrants” supporting projects with an amount equal to 10% of the overall budget which is proportioned with the migrant population in Finland (around 10%). A government with a restricted and limited horizon to its daily survival after its four-year mandate with this result (10% of the budget for culture dedicated to the integration of migrants which make 10% of the population in Finland) will be more than happy and will promote this result as a demonstration of its openness and democracy in governing the country and a good example for the whole world. Of course, it is important that nobody rises questions, and, even if it happens, it is even more important that nobody answers. So, nobody will care about how ethically acceptable is that an institution that supports “the integration of migrants” with 10% of its budget at the end of the day results far from having 10% of migrant personnel in its staff (How many migrants work in TAIKE? How “diverse” is TAIKE in this sense?). Nobody will also care to know how many of these supported projects FOR “the integration of migrants” were managed BY migrants. In this manner, “the integration of migrants” will remain only a number (10%) on paper, an empty word, which will cause discontent to migrants as well as Finns. In this hypothetical scenario, the only concrete outcome will be the futile government spending for “the NON-integration of migrants”. From here enters into play the well-known ideological ping-pong between the national sovranism and globalist neoliberalism of the last 30-40 years, where migrants and Finnish or other Western national precarious lumpenproletariats are used as cannon fodder.

This is only an example but “the integration of migrants” can be substituted with other fancy keywords such as “gender equality”, “diversity”, “ecological sustainability”, “democracy” and so on and so forth. In any case, important for me was to highlight the consequences of the empty words and empty policies and how, through these, can degenerate the Executive Agencies.

Reading the 2015-2020 strategy of ARTS PROMOTION CENTER FINLAND – TAIKE the situation is not much better.

The webpage of the 2015-2020 strategy consists of a text which is in between self-apologetic and marketization. This, of course, is expected by a center of PROMOTION that, as a term, clearly reveals its semantic belongingness to the market logic which by the way contrasts with a large part of modern and contemporary art practices and approaches (conceptual art, street art, institutional critique, land art, and so on and so forth, which are only a few examples for inclusion of which in government policies the ARTS PROMOTION CENTER FINLAND is limited starting from its definition). However, the worst part of TAIKE’s strategy consists of the so-called VALUES/ARVOT (in Finnish).

In English these values can be translated as:


In other words, the TAIKE’s values are exactly what it lacks to demonstrate and to guarantee to the public and to the applicants. To make it comprehensible, even for those who maybe wrote the strategy and policies implemented by TAIKE, an example from the market’s semantic thesaurus is needed. So, in other words, it can be said that setting up the values of an institutional strategy is the same as setting up the value of the exchange currency in finance and the economy. The lack of transparency in terms of values – in TAIKE’s case expertise, openness, and evaluation of the applications – in the free market means only one thing: HIGH RISKS OF SPECULATION! I hope the description of this arts and culture bubble in Finland clarifies the situation for anyone that cares about arts and culture.

The “Cauliflower Trust”. In 1941, a German migrant in Helsinki (What a coincidence!) escaping from the Nazi Regime, wrote a theaterstück, The Resistible Rise of Arthuro Ui. His name was Bertold Brecht. The play is a satirical allegory of Adolf Hitler’s rise to power and his use of the scandal of Junkers (in Brecht’s play the Junkers are the Trust of Cauliflower), corrupted landowners’ elite of Eastern Prussia that were maintained and have made profits thanks to the public funds from the central government of Weimarer Republik. Once in power, Adolf, although he came in power even thanks to the populist use of Osthilfeskandal, made sure to censure any mention to it in all the newspapers of the Third Reich because the elite of Junkers was meanwhile enrolled as zealous members of the Nazi Party. The end of Adolf, and the following elites, is known. Known it is also the end of the Third Reich.

I do not know if the coincidence of the play written in Helsinki as well as “the trust of cauliflower” brings to mind an analogy to the artists, researchers, cultural operators active in Finland (including the ones working for TAIKE and the government). And, considering that as far as I see it, in Finland more or less all the elite of artists, researchers, cultural operators of public and private institutions as well as freelancers can survive thanks to funds, the transparency on the decision-making of which is 0, this story perturbates a little.

But maybe, coming from Albania, it perturbates only me. In my mind, it brings me back seven or eight years ago. It reminds me of the rise to power of the new government led by the Artist Prime Minister Edi Rama, in 2013 (Our Artist is not like Brecht’s Anstreicher … we, as Albanians, are lucky because our Artist is famous and exhibits while governing even in Venice Biennial). One of its first decisions – January 2014 – was to close the National Art’s Center. This last was a corrupted entity under the competencies of the Ministry of Culture. Its function was to deliver funds for art and culture organizations, artists, cultural operators but above all to friends of the government. The decisions were taken by intellectuals, artists, and cultural operators of its “independent and empathetic” board. The new government, thanks to the plebiscitary elections, felt strong enough and instead of ameliorating, in terms of transparency of decision-making, the Center just closed it. Since then the decision-making is centralized and everything is delegated to the hands of the omniscient Prime Minister and Minister of Culture. Our Artist Prime Minister himself opened, within the institutional Prime Minister Building, an art center and gallery, called Center for Openness and Dialogue, an Executive Agency, for the transparency of which I invite the reader to enjoy asking directly to In may 2014 I published on this blog a manifesto, called Manifest: Transparency in and as Culture, and asked the active artists and cultural organizations to sign it. It was signed by ONE organization, with which I collaborated from September 2014 until December 2018, and TWO artists. The rest of the Albanian Trust of Cauliflower ignored and still ignores it.

The gold mine. The Executive Agencies are by definition agitators. They combine the best Eastern European dictatorship regimes of the XXth Century could express in terms of efficiency of institutional control of arts and culture for propagandistic use (a lesson learned thanks to the use the Bolsheviks made of the historical avant-garde art and artists after the Revolution), and the Western European bourgeois democracies could express in terms of efficiency of institutional commodification and marketization of arts and culture (starting from the ’50s abstract expressionism, all pop art, and up until today’s global system of “startists”). Yet, although in their worst versions these agencies seem exclusive instruments of top-down power control, there is a possibility not for a new model – because every new model has its laws and hierarchy of power control – but for a re-modulation of these agencies.

A re-modulation – turning back to the case of TAIKE – should start from data mining excavated from the documents of the applications and the rationales of the evaluation of the applications, the successful ones, and, most importantly, the unsuccessful ones because these last are the more accurate documents of the efficiency of the policies and accurate barometer of the state of the art. But to do this are needed researchers and institutions that recognize the value (know how to read, elaborate, and analyze theoretically, technically, and practically these gold mines of data) and most importantly do not limit their priorities in giving ready-made results to the politicians for their campaigns or to the corporates with interests in embellishing their profits through arts and culture financing.

Transparency of the evaluation process of Arts Promotion Center Finland (TAIKE) and comments on a survey of Center for Cultural Policy Research (CUPORE). Part IV. (Romeo Kodra)

THE PART D) of the Survey regarded Covid19 pandemic. This was the shortest part, which denotes the importance given by the designer of the Survey. As in all open calls for proposals I have seen in art and culture during the last year and a half even in this Survey the approach was paternalistic, where the pious Christian Spirit that has impregnated the Western neoliberal institutions welcome in meditation the confession of the sufferance of the poor artists during the pandemic.

“Has the coronavirus pandemic changed the way in which you work or led to new ways of working (e.g. remote work)?” asked the pious spirit of the institution. “Yes” was my answer. “If yes, describe how in brief:” said the voice of the institution. Then, I described my tragedy “I was cleaning during the night the public transportation buses for 1600-1700 euro monthly. COVID19 helped me a lot, because, beyond the scarcity of protection dispositives which was ‘normal’ for the context (all migrants depending on the fixed-term contracts for the working permits of MIGRI) and not able to raise the voice for better conditions, the people traveled less and there were fewer vomits and garbage on buses to clean. So, COVID19 helped me a lot.” As if didn’t like the answer, the spirit of the institution asked something less pertinent “Have you experienced problems regarding social security, unemployment or pension security during the coronavirus pandemic?” I said, “No!” The spirit insisted with another not very pertinent question “Have you switched professions or considered leaving the arts sector due to the coronavirus pandemic?” to which I also insisted with my firm “No!” because I was not less professional artist during the night shift as a bus cleaner as well as I have never thought the art as a sector, a section or a vivisection from which one leaves or comes. Tired, the spirit of the institution asked “How has the coronavirus pandemic affected your outlook regarding your professional future as an artist?” to which I replied, as he already seemed to expect, “very positively”. Surrendered, the spirit of the institution left me a space for “comments and additional information” which, unfortunately, was, once more, limited.

Therefore, here is the right place to say something more articulated that can make sense not only as a comment regarding the last section regarding the pandemic but also regarding the whole Survey and the major problem of transparency of the public institutions such as TAIKE and conclude this series of writing on the same argument.

To me sounds offensive even to ask artists how the pandemic changed their work (e.g. remote work)? What the fuck does this mean? Is this the “change”? The “remote work”? Is this the problem of the pandemic? I am sure that who designed the Survey knows very well that this is not the real question as everyone in the world knows and has the honesty to confess it. The problem of the pandemic is the space, its exploitation, and exploitation as such, the pressure on billions of underrepresented working slaves around the world, as well as the pressure on the animal life (the famous bats from Wuhan from which happened the spillover). As I see it, the real question even in Finland should be posted on these terms, in terms of space. But it is difficult to make it openly, in a transparent manner, because there are certain interests in investing in the space through the densification of concrete and asphalt in Finland such as in the case of Boulevardisation of Helsinki. And if the question is posted in this terms, openly and in a transparent manner, then the corporate groups that are making money with the Boulevardisation, the state that these groups hold hostage through political parties financed by them, will not have instruments to alienate the people thinking about the real solution – STOP INVESTING IN CONCRETE AND ASPHALT FOR PROFITS – , will not have even the instruments to predicate DEMOCRACY to China, to Russia or any other AUTOCRACY or OLIGARCHY around the world but concentrate on the Finnish ones.

It is a long run this writing, at times it may seem pretentious, started from the request to have transparent feedback from TAIKE regarding my application for an artistic and cultural project and concluded with a part of a Survey of CUPORE making questions regarding the global pandemic and my actual project on Boulevardisation. Yet, if someone reads it without the alibis we prepare for ourselves and our daily compromises I am sure it can make more sense and can clarify the context we live in, Finland in this case.

P.S. The Survey had a last PART E) regarding “Background Information” of the participant which is interesting only for the poor vivisectionists of CUPORE and TAIKE and not for the reader of this blog.

Transparency of the evaluation process of Arts Promotion Center Finland (TAIKE) and comments on a survey of Center for Cultural Policy Research (CUPORE). Part III. (Romeo Kodra)

THE PART B) of the Survey regarded the “Changing nature of being an artists”, which, as expected, did not specify the view on the topic of the institutionalized researchers of the institutions TAIKE/CUPORE that designed the Survey. So, the sub-questions under this topic, to which one could express its opinion from 1 likely/desirability to 5 unlikely/undesirability, regarded exiting themes such as “networking of the artists”, “employment/entrepreneurship”, “finances”, “utilization outside the field of art”, “blurring boundaries between art and other fields”, “multidisciplinarity”, “continuous readiness for change”, “broader expertise (e.g. marketing)”, “technology”, “digitization”, “social media”, “entertainment”, “impact on well-being and vitality”. The only questions I had in my mind during all the reading of this part of the Survey was “Where the fuck the researcher/s that designed this Survey think/s is living?”. The amazement to see how these people write cliches, characteristic obviousness that one can find in every banal discussion on social media among Sunday morning art amateurs, is depressing, especially considering that he/she/they is/are payed handsomely with public money. In my opinion, the people that designed the Survey do not understand at all and do not problematize the position from which are delivering the questions. In other words, beyond their paternalistic, psychoanalytical, and behaviorist approach that characterizes the contemporary cognitive capitalism, the person/s who designed the Survey do/es not question its/their position, its/their being within an institution and its/their being institutionalized. Luckily, there was a box where one could say something else, beyond the stupid asked sub-questions, where I wrote:

“Society is becoming more and more a society of the spectacle, where the policies are driven by the private interests of big corporate groups. These last control, through financing election campaigns, the political parties, and, consequently the public art and culture institutions as well as private art and culture institutions thanks to the philanthropic facade. The economic development will be controlled even more. Therefore, even the changes in working life and political power structures will pressure the artistic freedom to privilege the artists’ servility and the art-washing practices. The art and culture institutions thanks to, even”

but unfortunately the space to conclude a minimally articulated thought finished because of the limited characters.

THE PART C) of the Survey regarded the “Status of the artist in society” and was very interesting for its design. In my opinion, the researcher/s strategy and through them the institutions they are part of as well as the politicians/political parties which govern through these institutions, is to safely justify and save its/their ass/es from not giving appropriate feedback for the evaluation as well as take responsibilities for their decision-making. This strategy consists in asking immediately in the first sub-question “How important do you consider the following criteria in making funding decisions for the arts?”, which has 15 statements where one can evaluate from “1/very important” to “5/not at all important” or “cannot say”. Someone that does not know very well the logic of the neoliberal governmentality and how is delivered through the institutional discourses cannot understand the relation between the “status of the artist in society” and “criteria in making funding decisions for the arts”. So, why is our imaginary researcher that designed the Survey making this connection? It is simply to channel the attention of the people participating in this Survey to a supposed common understanding that the “status of the artist in society” is something that interest the artists themselves as well as the public, the taxpayers. After doing so, in the 15 listed statements we have all, again, supposed common understanding of the “quality and standards of the art”, “access and accessibility”, “intrinsic value”, “commercial/potential market”, “the role of art in promoting cultural dialogue”, “in promoting health and well-being”, “in promoting creative economy”, “the role of art in offering new perspectives”, “the role of the art in taking a stand”, “the entertainment value of the art”, “the importance of grants and subsidies as recognition and an incentive”, “the social impact of the art”, “regional equality”, “equality between different fields of the arts”, “the fair and equal treatment of applicants”. One could ask, why should I, as artist, need a status? For example I wrote: “The ‘status’ and ‘artist’ is a syntagmatic contradiction in terms”. Does it make any sense to our imaginary institutionalized researcher of TAIKE/CUPORE? Or why should I, as taxpayer, pay for art based on those 15 statements? Cannot be 16 or 1016 other meaningful statements? Or cannot change from time to time and periodically according to the spatial-temporal situation of the contexts (locally and globally)?

Then there were some claims that one could evaluate, not less stupid than the previous sub-questions. For example, “there is a desire in society to improve the status of artists” and things like that. One could ask, why is this statement after taking for granted in the previous section the “status of the artist in society” and the consequent 15 statements? The only thing with a minimal sense was regarding the universal basic income which do not make a distinction of status because it is universal. So, not about artists or any supposed elite … not about any division.

Yet, another example that underlined the perfidious strategy of the Survey was something articulated like “decision-makers have sufficient skills to respond to the needs of artists”. One could ask, if TAIKE/CUPORE do not give feedback on the evaluations and the rationale of the decision-makers that justify their decision, how can one evaluate weather those decision-makers have or not have sufficient skills to evaluate and take decisions? Isn’t it a way of the institution and neoliberal governmentality to abstract itself, to make a clear division from the people that work for the institution, the poor hard-working-industrious evaluators of TAIKE/CUPORE, and make pressure on them and their qualities thanks to the expected negative feedback of the participants of the Survey? Isn’t this a manner for the institutions TAIKE/CUPORE to detach itself from the people that work for TAIKE/CUPORE leaving them in front of the negative feedback. As I see it, the hidden strategic intention of our imaginary researcher that designed the Survey is that it is not the fault of the institutions and neoliberal governmentality which should survive intact (LONG LIVE THE NEOLIBERISM AND THE CAPITAL!!!), but of the evaluators and decision-makers that do not have sufficient skills.

However, I do not want neither to justify any person within these institutions, because I think that the evaluators that do not take position and accept to evaluate proposals without giving feedback are accomplices of the neoliberal institutions and governmentality.

Yet, at the end of the section, fortunately, there was another box where Survey’s depressed participants like me could add “comments and additional information”, and release their valve of depression as well as have their dose of illusion and feel better for at least 2 minutes:

“Every predefined “role” is a deadly coffin for every art and artist. The contemporary institutionalized ignorance seems does not recognize anymore the origins of the relations between art and institutions. In ancient Athens, the first institutionalized art form, the theater, was born as an acceptance of the total alterity/otherness, the animal reign of Dyonises, by the ‘demos’/society/people of Athens, and, by the way, the first awarded theater piece was Aeschyles’ “Persians” … so by the public was accepted not only a piece on the ‘others’ but also a theater piece on the enemies, the tragic fate of whose, after the defeat against the Athens, was able to move the spirit of the Athenian society.
This is easy to understand. But, I do not have any illusion in this regard, because the idiocy of a defined “role of the artists” as well as “status of the artist”, which by definition should resist any role and status, will appear in other calls for proposals, research papers, policies, etc.”

… continues with the last part.

Transparency of the evaluation process of Arts Promotion Center Finland (TAIKE) and comments on a survey of Center for Cultural Policy Research (CUPORE). Part II. (Romeo Kodra)

THE SURVEY. On 8th of September, I received an email from TAIKE and the Center for Cultural Policy Research CUPORE. Basically it regarded the request to participate by compiling a questionnaire about:

“the views of artists working in different fields of the arts regarding the future.
The questionnaire asks about new/changing forms of being an artist, trends that are affecting the work of the artist, the future prospects for artists and issues related to the diversity of artistic work.
The questionnaire for artists has been sent to one in three artists who applied for a grant from Taike in 2020.
The link to the questionnaire is open and can be shared. The link can also be found on the Taike and Cupore websites, as well as on the communication channels of various arts organisations (artist associations, foundations and arts information centres, for example).
We ask that you respond to the questionnaire by clicking on the link below by 30 September 2021. We hope that you will respond to all the questions and express your own views freely. The views of individual artists are very valuable for the results of the barometer.
Everyone who responds and provides their contact information will be entered into a prize drawing for the chance to win one of 20 Museum Cards.”

Fortunately, I was one in three lucky artists to receive the email and link directly.

The first part A) of the questionnaire was “Living and working as an artist”, a clear reference to the specific, well-defined and alienating capitalist category of the “ARTIST”, where it was required to tick the boxes of the “field” (architecture, visual arts, cinema, etc.). Within the same session was a specific question, “What is your profession as an artist”, to which I replied “visual art and cultural researcher” just to confuse the ideas of the “researcher” handling the questionnaires, for whom the life would have been much easier to see as a reply “painter”, “architect” or any other XIXth Century definition. There were also some claims:

“An artist is any person who defines them (I think it is a wrong translation because in Finnish is itsensä/itself) as an artist
An artist is a person who earns their main livelihood by doing artistic work.
An artist is a person who has received an art education.
An artist is a person who meets the criteria defined by an artists’ association in their field of art.
An artist is a person who receives artist grants based on peer reviews.
An artist is a person who receives copyright income.
An artist is a person who is recognised as an artist by the artist community.
An artist is a person defined as such by the audience.
A person is born an artist.
The profession of an artist is a vocation.
The profession of an artist is a profession among others.
Creating art is a livelihood among other livelihoods.”

to which one could tick the boxes “strongly agree”, “partially agree”, “neither agree nor disagree”, “partially disagree”, “strongly disagree”, “cannot say”. Accept the first claim with which I strongly agree, the large part of the other claims are still orbiting around the institutional logic of categorization of the ARTIST, or, as the last four, pure abstract definitions the use of which by professional researchers I cannot imagine.
In addition, there was another question, “Have you worked as an artist outside the field of the arts (e.g. education, social and health services, construction)?” and request for more specifications such as “financial reasons’, “personal interest”, “other reasons”. Moreover, there was the question “In addition to your work as an artist, have you performed other work that is unrelated to your professional skills as an artist?” and same specifications. Regarding both these questions I see some problems. Firstly, because although as any other I think that there were relations between my artistic practice and the position of cultural manager or university art lecturer, I did not think I was “outside” the field of the arts”. I also think that there were more relations between my artistic practice and the supposed unrelated work of loading and unloading trucks and cargo, cleaning public transportation buses of Espoo, testing colors in a textile dyeing plant laboratory, etc., rather than between my artistic practice and the practice as cultural manager or art educator. At least, if I have to chose to which category “I belong” (and, by the way, I would never chose to belong to any category!!!), I would say I related more to the category of migrant sub-proletarian worker rather than to the category of working artist or cultural operator supported by TAIKE’s grants. Moreover, I do not think am the only one of those supported by TAIKE to think the same way regarding their “performed other work that is unrelated to [their] professional skills”. (…continues)

Transparency of the evaluation process of Arts Promotion Center Finland (TAIKE) and comments on a survey of Center for Cultural Policy Research (CUPORE). Part I. (Romeo Kodra)

THE FEEDBACK. I decided a month ago to write to the Arts Promotion Center of Finland (TAIKE) asking for feedback concerning the evaluation criteria of an application for which I did not receive support. The first reply was that “Taike doesn’t give feedback on individual project proposals/applications. When applying a grant, please familiarize yourself with the call for applications on that specific grant”, which to me sounded like an answer with the intention to check my capacity of reading and understanding a text/the open call. So, I insisted. Then, I received another, more articulated, reply:

“Our criteria of evaluation vary according to grant. Here are some that apply to all:
You must be professional in the field, have artistic training from art schools or have good working experience.
Actively working on the field.
Interesting project plan.
Realistic budget.
For example, I work with Uusimaa region grants. There less than 10 % of applications receive a grant. According to my unofficial statistic 80 % would qualify for grant, they meet all the criteria mentioned above. There is no ‘if you tick these boxes you will get the grant’.
The peer evaluators (= selected artists) do a painful task of trying to sort out from the 80 % which 10 % get the grant. In the beginning of the process we do all discuss together what the process looks like: how many from which fields of art, young/old, region, which sections (composer, singer… painter, ceramic artist) etc. A very complex puzzle. For 2021: 837 people applied for Uusimaa working grant, 41 got the grant.
I do not know if this helps you at all.”

The first part of the email, regarding the “criteria that apply to all”, confirmed the priority given to the institutional+ized artists: “professional in the field”, “artistic training from art school”, “working experience”, “actively working on the field”. All concerning “profession”, in other words artists that profess and confess themselves as belonging or related to something (institutions, ideals) or someone (as disciples); “field”, as if the art was not an expensive “field” and for this reason impossible to define, confine and limit; and “working”, as if it was a clear criterion and not a process of becoming (for more information see the concept of inoperosity in Giorgio Agamben and its relation with genealogy of power and biopolitics in the Western civilization or better the living labor in Marx).
Regarding “interesting plan” I do not want to say anything because is self-evident as totally arbitrary criterion, and the “realistic budget” is not something that should represent any difficulty in giving feedback, as far as anyone understands that the numbers are numbers and not opinions.

The second part regarded the difficulties of the selection process, evidencing firstly the hard work of the evaluators. I am very interested in the archetype of the industrious/Ilmarinen in the Finnish mythology and consequently culture. I do not know why but this tendency of “trumpeting” its own work, paid with public taxes by the way, reminded me another occasion where I noticed a same tendency, the presentation of Municipality’s “Helsinki Art and Culture Vision 2030” (min. 18.44, accessed on 9.9.2021).

Secondly, the email, beyond the “painful task” and “complex puzzle” (which I sincerely believe), highlighted the fact that the “peer evaluators” were “selected artists” (of course by the institution TAIKE), as if the TAIKE’s “selected artists”, supposed belonging to the category of the ARTIST, automatically could guarantee the correctness and quality of the evaluation. Even this second part is very interesting for me, always related with the Finnish mythology (the mythologem of separation/conjunction) and consequently culture, especially for its illuminating construction of discourse, intended literally and linguistically, through which the political power, supported by the capital (private corporate groups), infiltrates the arts and culture, their academic institutions as well as artistic creativity and freedom in general. This kind of construction is a classical persuasive model of discourse through which the neoliberal governmentality and the Capital attract artists thanks to their non-elaborated egoistic and elitist character’s traits as can be noticed by the definition of “selected” and “artists”. Isn’t clear for everyone that my being artist does not guarantee neither my understanding nor my empathy or sympathy of other artists? Moreover, I may be prostituting art for the representational aspects of the art, for the facade of art. I may be deliberately selling myself for money by permitting to the political power the use of my image, status, authority for clear aestheticization of policies and consequently anesthetization of the masses. Do I guarantee the correct evaluation of other artists’ applications without a transparent justification/rationale?

In any case considering that I did not receive pertinent answers I asked again specifying that it was not my primary interest to question the result of the evaluation of my application, but to understand and make a better application the next time. In addition, I specified that I have some theoretical and practical knowledge on the processes of evaluation – making the examples of Creative Europe and Horizon Europe programmes of European Commission where the applicants receive feedback with the points for each criteria as well as its justification/rationale – but did not know if the same process is applied within TAIKE. Moreover I asked whether I was the first person to ask these question.

From 16th of August I did not receive any further information.

THE SURVEY. Yesterday, I received an email from TAIKE and the Center for Cultural Policy Research CUPORE. (… continues).

‘La Vie de Bohème and Dramaturgy of Boulevardisation. An Auto-Bio-Geo-Graphic Art Performance’, by Romeo Kodra.

THE IDEA: The performance, realized thanks to the support of ESPOO CITY and its CULTURE UNIT, is held in the framework of an ongoing artistic research project “Iconology and Iconographies of Boulevard: from Boulevard to Boulevardization and BoulevARTization”.

THE METHODOLOGY: Mainly, the topic imposes iconography as a method of the research, but also iconology, which will consist in collecting, classifying images (‘image’ intended as ‘bild’: see in Hans Belting) and discourses of boulevardisation through their cultural analysis. Altogether, this methodological approach serves to define the mythological archetypes (Carl Jung) inscribed within wider contemporary urban and cultural iconography, starting from the mythologem (Károly Kerény) of “opposites’ separation/conjunction” (the boulevardisation as a key passage from industrial to post-industrial paradigm) as well as the archetypal image of “the industrious”.

THE CONTEXT: Helsinki’s and Uusimaa’s last urban plan provides more densification, thanks to the concept of boulevardisation (transformation of highways in boulevards), seen not only as a solution for the challenge of a greener city but also as the solution of demographic changes (namely, the arrival of migrants). Yet, the plan lack to prioritize its challenges: by making more space for the green (densification of asphalt and cement is a contradiction in terms with a greener city); and assure the participation of migrants (none has asked the migrants if they would prefer a more dense Helsinki). Yet, assured, through urban densification, are the consequent profits for few corporate groups that will build the new boulevards. Therefore, future conflicts are easy to predict between migrants and Finns, passive spectators of the boulevardisation as well as environmental and cultural upheavals. For the performance, the chosen context is the iconic middle of Engel‘s North and South Esplanadi , the monumental Runeberg‘s and Suomi-neito‘s complex in Helsinki’s Boulevardi.

THE SYSTEMIC MACHINE: In underdeveloped transitional societies (HEAVEN FORBID!!! NOT IN FINLAND!!!) the systemic machine for corporate profits works thanks to the involvement of several “play-role-actors”:
STEP 1 – private companies with interests in densification/boulevardisation support politicians and political parties.
STEP 2 – the politicians/political parties propose the plan in the public institution/municipality/region.
STEP 3 – the public institution asks for advice from independent academics/experts.
STEP 4 – the independent academics/experts are supported with grants for their personal projects by private foundations owned by the above-mentioned private companies with interests in densification/boulevardisation.

THE “ROLE OF THE ARTIST”: The inspiration, or better to say the first modulation of the performance builds on Aki Kaurismäki’s “Boheemielämää” and his main character, the Albanian artist and illegal migrant Rodolfo, which in this case is re-conceptualized as a carnival perversion in a new postindustrial-bohemian-migrant-artist with no principles, convictions, or scruples (CAUTION: The performer was born in Albania, but any reference to the Albanian Artist Prime Minister – actually in his third mandate -, who, in 1992, the year of Kaurismäki’s film, was himself a “bohémien” migrant artist living in Paris, and especially any reference to his green-washing and art-washing urban development policies, are purely coincidental!!!). The performance is also a modulation of Carmelo Bene’s “Pinocchio”, a piece of wood/nature/otherness (evoking the “greener” approach of the boulevardisation), which from a migrant/other becomes, as Bene’s Pinocchio, a right-minded man and good member/artist of a boulevardized society. Lastly, the performance is a further modulation on Paul Klee’s works, but here the polyphony is based not on combining, stratifying, approaching the colors towards each other but erasing them and highlighting the line. For this, the starting point is the paradoxical polyphonic painting of Paul Klee “Ventriloquist and Crier in the Moor” as well as Klee’s belief that “A line is a dot that went for a walk”.

La prostituée du boulevard de Clichy et l’inspecteur qui la surveille ont tous les deux de mauvais souliers et tous les deux ont mal aux pieds d’avoir arpenté des kilomètres de bitume. Georges Simenon