Here’s what the two current hot potato contests look like.
Media Sponsorship Fund vs. Someone else
What is a potato? English-speaking mass media in Lithuania
The big intrigue of this game is who the Media Sponsorship Fund (MRF) is playing with. A typical “hot potato” requires a rival to whom one tries to shift the blame. In this case, English financing of published cultural media – the online magazine “Echo Gone Wrong” and the magazine “Vilnius Review”. But MRF decided to choose somewhat unconventional solutions: throw a potato in the air and shout “it’s not mine”.
Speaking on the LRT Klasika show “Ryto allegro” on airMRF Council Chairperson Vaiva Žukienė said that the financing of such publications should not be the sole responsibility of the MRF: perhaps the funding could be collective, perhaps it should have a separate program, perhaps the Lithuanian Council of Culture and the Lithuanian Institute of Culture should contribute to the financing of such publications.
Maybe. Only this year, after the announcement of the conditions of the competition, according to which English-language publications cannot apply for MRF funding, the emergence of an additional program was not announced, and other cultural funding institutions were not invited to play together – it seems that they also learned about the situation only from the public space. In general, such negotiations are probably possible, even if an eyebrow is involuntarily raised when trying to understand why these publications cannot be taken under their wing by the newly established MRF, last year without distributing half a million euros and having to announce an additional tender. However, understanding how funding mechanisms work and that it takes time to find, administer, and finance new programs, the above-mentioned publications basically remain on ice this year.
First of all, the question naturally arises – perhaps the new guidelines were announced without assessing the situation, without knowing that a part of important cultural media channels will be left behind? Everyone makes mistakes, mistakes are learned from. But, as can be judged from the aforementioned LRT Klasikas show, the MRF Council was informed of the concerns of the Cultural Periodical Media Association – they were simply ignored. One of the main arguments was that these media outlets perform a representative function abroad, leaving aside the fact that they also publish critical texts, and both “Vilnius Review” and “Echo Gone Wrong” are important for the growing international community in the country, which can get acquainted with Lithuanian literature. and trends in contemporary art. However, it is interesting that if the distribution of funding were really based on the argument of representation (publications performing such a function should not be under the control of the MRF), a good third of the recipients of support who engage in celebrated-advertising cultural journalism in Lithuanian would have to be deleted.
However, with the upheaval and another communication crisis of the MRF, the situation had to be solved somehow. The chosen strategy of MRF is, again, unexpected: the English-language publications “Echo Gone Wrong” and “Vilnius Review” have to submit applications to the program of national minorities.
In other words, the “hot potato” briefly turned into a tailspin championship. And a permanent, suitable place for the potato has not been found yet.
Lithuanian Cultural Council vs. Lithuanian Film Center
What is a potato? Film culture projects
Here we are dealing with a completely classic version of the “hot potato”. Two players – the Lithuanian Cultural Council (LKT) and the Lithuanian Cinema Center (LKC) – throw some of the projects of film culture (e.g. film education) at each other.
LKT argues that cinema, unlike other fields of culture, has a separate funding institution dedicated only to itself, so perhaps it should not apply for LKT funding, including horizontal funding programs. It would seem logical.
The LKC, for its part, points the finger at the Cinema Law, the provisions and regulations of its funding rules, and also shrugs its shoulders – some projects and activities do not fall into the LKC garden at all, and the administration of some programs by the LKC is unlikely to be a sustainable step due to the specifics of the programs themselves and the field. . You would say, it is also logical.
This game of “hot potato” lasts longer and involves more outdoor participants. But it is important that the action of the game takes place more often behind closed doors – and my knowledge of some vicissitudes is determined by being a member of the Cinema Culture Association and behind-the-scenes talk.
The fact that this issue never explodes into the public space not as a problem of one organization or project, but as a systemic abscess of cultural policy, also leads to a prolonged institutional ping-pong.
The chosen strategies of the players also contribute to this: LKT is more active, so it keeps trying to throw cinema out of its borschts (which can be at least partially understood, knowing what kind of hunger games LKT’s funding divisions are), while LKC more often takes a defensive position, talks about unilateral LKT decisions, but not necessarily taking proactive steps to represent their field. Such mutual dynamics ensure the multi-seasonal nature of this game.
What is his result? Potato, trying to figure out where to put it, keeps hearing the spells “cinema as a goal” and “cinema as a means”, sometimes learns about a new stage of the game in the form of another discussion (to which it is not always invited) and holds a spike during each new funding competition , trying to somehow slip through at least one more year.
Arbitrator
As the “hot potato” game drags on, one can only hope that an arbitrator will emerge. It should probably become the Ministry of Culture, which, at least in the public space, does not interfere too much in these issues, probably trying to rely on the principle of respectful distance.
Still, it’s beginning to look like intervention is necessary, and for several reasons.
First of all, you need someone to act as a moderator. It seems that different parties in similar situations sometimes not only disagree, but often do not communicate, and the search for solutions – usually temporary or only prolonging the stay in limbo – begins already after the fact trying to deal with awkward situations after the announcement of results.
Second, it is important to establish clear rules of the game. Under what circumstances, when and how can funding guidelines be redrawn? Who should be informed about this? Should there be a transition period? Clear answers to these questions are important so that some of the participants in the cultural field do not remain in the gray zone – as if they can no longer apply for one fund, before the doors are opened to others.
And this is a matter of survival. Because “Hot Potato” in cultural politics is as boring as it is a dangerous game.
window.fbAsyncInit = function() {
FB.init({
appId: ‘117218911630016’,
version: ‘v2.10’,
status: true,
cookie: false,
xfbml: true
});
};
(function(d, s, id) {
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) {
return;
}
js = d.createElement(s);
js.id = id;
js.src = “https://connect.facebook.net/lt_LT/sdk.js”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
#Monika #Gimbutaitė #plays #hot #potato #Lithuanian #cultural #politics #Culture
**Interview with Vaiva Žukienė: Chairperson of the Media Sponsorship Fund Council**
*Interviewer:* Good day, Vaiva. Thank you for joining us today. As the Chairperson of the Media Sponsorship Fund (MRF), you’ve recently made headlines regarding the funding situation for English-language cultural publications in Lithuania. Can you explain what the current contention is?
*Vaiva Žukienė:* Good day, and thank you for having me. Yes, the situation is quite complex. The MRF has established specific guidelines this year which, unfortunately, exclude English-language publications like “Echo Gone Wrong” and “Vilnius Review” from applying for funding. This decision has raised concerns because these publications play a significant role in representing Lithuanian culture abroad.
*Interviewer:* It seems there is some confusion about why these publications were excluded. Was there a discussion about this before finalizing the guidelines?
*Vaiva Žukienė:* That’s a pertinent question. There were indeed discussions, but it appears that the implications of the guidelines were not fully assessed. The MRF council was aware of the concerns from the Cultural Periodical Media Association, but the feedback was overlooked. It is regrettable that important cultural media were left out of the funding considerations.
*Interviewer:* What do you propose as a solution for the situation where these publications feel unsupported?
*Vaiva Žukienė:* We believe funding should be collaborative. Instead of placing the entire burden on the MRF, we could explore a joint funding program that includes contributions from the Lithuanian Council of Culture and the Lithuanian Institute of Culture. This would allow for a more sustainable approach to supporting diverse media.
*Interviewer:* Within the context of the broader cultural scene, the Lithuanian film sector seems to be in a similar predicament with its own funding disputes. How does the MRF fit into this picture?
*Vaiva Žukienė:* The situation in film is analogous to what we are facing. The MRF and other cultural organizations need to collaborate rather than point fingers at each other. It is essential to create an environment where funding is not a zero-sum game but a shared objective to nurture all facets of Lithuania’s vibrant culture.
*Interviewer:* As a final thought, what are the next steps for the MRF to address these challenges and support the cultural sector more effectively?
*Vaiva Žukienė:* Our immediate goal is to initiate dialogue with stakeholders from the excluded publications and other cultural entities. We will also work toward revising our funding strategy to ensure that it reflects the current media landscape in Lithuania. Ultimately, collaboration and communication will be key to finding a path forward.
*Interviewer:* Thank you, Vaiva, for shedding light on these pressing issues. We look forward to seeing how the MRF navigates these challenges in the future.
*Vaiva Žukienė:* Thank you for having me; I hope for a productive dialogue ahead.
