In the vibrant tapestry of Valencia, where the sun-drenched streets and lively festivals paint a picture of joy and tradition, a troubling undercurrent is beginning to stir. Beneath the surface of this culturally rich city, a distinct odor of discontent and corruption is making itself known. Valencia, renowned for its spectacular Fallas festival and exquisite paella, is also grappling with a darker side that threatens to taint its illustrious reputation. From questionable political dealings to ethical lapses in cultural institutions, something smells rotten in the culture of Valencia. This growing stench of dysfunction and deceit challenges the city’s image and raises pressing questions about the integrity and future of its cherished traditions.
In recent years, Valencia has witnessed a notable shift in its cultural landscape, one driven by political strategy rather than artistic merit. Traditionally, Spain’s right-wing parties have exhibited a pronounced disregard for cultural affairs. At the same time, the left has capitalized on this terrain with a deft blend of ideological fervor and practical acumen, often steering public funding and policy in their favor. Valencia serves as a telling case study of this dynamic.
The seeds of this transformation were sown around 2007 when the Sectorial Roundtable of Contemporary Art—a coalition closely aligned with the PSOE’s Culture Ministers—embarked on a mission to influence Valencian cultural institutions. Their tool of choice was a “Code of Good Practices,” designed to appear neutral and professional but, in reality, to consolidate power within their own ranks. Despite initial support from Minister Carmen Calvo, who was wary of the code’s implications, it was signed with the stipulation that it would remain non-binding, thus reducing it to little more than a symbolic gesture.
The 2008 economic crisis further accelerated the left’s cultural strategy. Confronted with a precarious situation, progressive cultural agents recognized the necessity of securing control over funding to ensure their survival. Meanwhile, the Valencian PP government resisted these encroachments, perceiving the code as a threat to their political dominance. The right wing’s defensive posture, coupled with media scrutiny of corruption scandals involving key figures like Francisco Camps and Rita Barberá, created an environment ripe for progressive cultural policy to take root.
The turning point came in 2015, following the Botánico Pact, which saw the left-leaning Compromís party gain control of the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports. In a decisive move, Compromís swiftly implemented the Code of Good Practices of Valencian Culture, facilitating the appointment of individuals sympathetic to their ideology. Media outlets like El Diario.es and Valencia Plaza played a crucial role in endorsing and promoting these changes.
Read more: Ibex 35 stocks have reasons to celebrate the ECB rate cuts
By 2018, Compromís had further solidified its influence with the passage of the IVAM Law, which granted greater autonomy to the Valencian Institute of Modern Art (IVAM). The law ensured that the institution’s governing body and artistic direction reflected the ideological leanings of its proponents, with Nuria Enguita’s leadership epitomizing this shift towards a more radical, progressive cultural agenda.
This article delves into how the left’s strategic maneuvers have reshaped the cultural sector in Valencia, limiting the diversity and openness that once characterized its cultural institutions. Through exclusive interviews and sector analysis, it seeks to uncover the broader implications of this political dominance on the city’s cultural landscape.
Toxic do-goodism
On June 30, 2023, amid the political turmoil following the May elections, the IVAM (Valencian Institute of Modern Art) Governing Council convened under the leadership of Raquel Tamarit, Minister of Education, Culture, and Sports for Compromís. During this meeting, eight of the council’s fifteen members were renewed for a five-year term, effectively securing a majority. This renewal, deemed “irremovable” by the IVAM Law, was designed to ensure that changes in government would not disrupt the museum’s strategic direction. Through this maneuver, the left achieved its goal of exerting a dominant influence over the Valencian cultural scene, free from external oversight and accountability.
However, this consolidation of power was not without controversy. Nuria Enguita, then IVAM’s director, was compelled to resign following revelations about donations to a foundation established by Vicente Todolí, who had been part of the jury that appointed her. With the Ministry of Culture referring the matter to the public prosecutor, a new search for an IVAM director became necessary. The ministry, with its ideological leanings aligned with Compromís, tailored the selection process to suit its objectives, reinforcing the web of control they had woven.
The situation is emblematic of a broader issue beyond mere political ideology—it highlights the potential for opaque practices in cultural governance. By the end of July, the High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community intervened, provisionally halting the appointment of a new IVAM director. This decision followed an appeal challenging the independence of the seven-member assessment committee, five of whom were also on the museum’s Governing Council. The court’s unusual decision to suspend the election suggested serious concerns about procedural integrity.
In the ensuing political skirmish, media outlets such as Eldiario.es and Valencia Plaza have accused President Carlos Mazón of stalling cultural progress in Valencia. Yet, it is clear that the control mechanisms established by the left have significantly complicated matters at various cultural institutions. Paula Añó, former Autonomous Secretary of Culture, articulated this issue sharply: “There is no paralysis in the Ministry of Culture. The Botànic left us in a mess,” she asserted in a June 4 interview.
A striking example of the entrenched mentality of the progressive faction was evident during the farewell event for Peréz Pont at the Cultural Centre El Carmen. Amidst a gathering of left-leaning supporters—gallery owners, journalists, and cultural figures—Pont concluded his speech with the defiant assertion, “Politicians are just passing through; we professionals have come to stay.” This sentiment met with applause from his allies, underscores a troubling disregard for democratic accountability and a commitment to maintaining control regardless of political shifts.
The issue at hand extends beyond a mere clash between progressivism and conservatism; it delves into the realm of administrative misconduct and insider favoritism. Esteemed contemporary art critic Fernando Castro, a vocal advocate of leftist principles, sheds light on this troubling phenomenon in the latest edition of Descubrir el arte. He critiques the pervasive influence of so-called ‘good practices’ within cultural institutions, which, according to Castro, have been hijacked by entrenched interests.
In his article, Castro argues that these ‘good practices’ often serve as a veneer for favoritism and nepotism, allowing a select group of ‘insiders’ to secure influential positions within museums. He notes with frustration that the ethical standards required of jury members are frequently ignored, leading to the entrenchment of mediocrity. “It matters little that some jury members should have recused themselves based on basic ethical considerations. The priority for these ‘climbing gangs’ is to ensure that their mediocrity is not challenged, as future opportunities depend on maintaining these insider connections,” Castro asserts.
His critique provides a crucial perspective on a broader trend affecting cultural institutions, particularly in Valencia. Under the guise of progressive reform, these mechanisms of favoritism have been disguised as genuine efforts toward inclusivity and improvement. Castro’s analysis is a compelling call to recognize and address the underlying power dynamics and administrative practices that continue to undermine the integrity of cultural institutions. For those concerned with the state of cultural governance, his full text is an essential read, offering a penetrating examination of how political and personal interests can distort the mission of art institutions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central issue discussed in the article?
The article addresses concerns about the cultural sector in Valencia, highlighting how political maneuvering, particularly by the left, has led to a consolidation of power within cultural institutions. This has resulted in a lack of transparency and potential favoritism, undermining the diversity and openness of the cultural landscape.
How did the leftist policies affect the IVAM (Valencian Institute of Modern Art)?
The leftist policies led to the appointment of sympathetic members to the IVAM Governing Council and the imposition of a “Code of Good Practices,” which was intended to ensure long-term control over the institution. This move was criticized for entrenching ideological biases and reducing accountability within the museum’s governance.
What is the significance of the IVAM Law in this context?
The IVAM Law was designed to give the museum greater autonomy, ostensibly to shield it from political interference. However, critics argue that it was used strategically to secure power for progressive allies, making it difficult for subsequent administrations to effect change without navigating a complex web of entrenched interests.
What controversy surrounded Nuria Enguita’s directorship at IVAM?
Nuria Enguita’s resignation was prompted by revelations of donations to a foundation linked to Vicente Todolí, a member of the jury that appointed her. The situation raised ethical concerns and led to an investigation by the public prosecutor, resulting in her departure and further scrutiny of the institution’s governance.
Why was the appointment of a new IVAM director suspended?
In late July, the High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community suspended the appointment of a new IVAM director due to concerns about the assessment committee’s independence. The committee’s composition, with members also on the Governing Council, was challenged as creating a conflict of interest, leading to the court’s precautionary measure.
How do media outlets like Eldiario.es and Valencia Plaza contribute to the discussion?
These media outlets have accused the current administration, led by President Carlos Mazón, of stalling cultural progress in Valencia. They argue that the control mechanisms imposed by the previous left-leaning administration have complicated efforts to address issues within cultural institutions.
What does Fernando Castro’s critique reveal about the situation?
Fernando Castro, a prominent art critic, argues that the so-called ‘good practices’ have been manipulated to benefit a select group of insiders. His critique highlights how these practices often serve as a cover for favoritism and nepotism, detracting from genuine ethical standards and perpetuating a cycle of mediocrity within the cultural sector.
How does this situation reflect broader trends in cultural governance?
The situation in Valencia is indicative of a broader trend where political ideologies and personal connections increasingly influence cultural governance. This trend can lead to a lack of diversity and transparency, ultimately affecting the integrity and vibrancy of cultural institutions.
Conclusion
The situation in Valencia’s cultural sector reveals a troubling convergence of politics and institutional governance, where ideological agendas and insider favoritism overshadow the principles of transparency and meritocracy. The left’s strategic maneuvers to secure long-term control over cultural institutions like the IVAM have resulted in a cultural environment marked by increased opacity and diminished diversity. The imposition of biased ‘good practices’ and the entrenchment of politically aligned individuals within key positions reflect a broader trend of politicized cultural management, which risks stifling genuine artistic expression and public trust.
This intricate web of political influence and administrative control has far-reaching implications for the future of Valencia’s cultural landscape. It underscores the need for vigilance and reform to ensure that cultural institutions remain dynamic, inclusive, and accountable. For stakeholders, advocates, and the public, the challenge lies in navigating these complexities and advocating for a cultural sector that prioritizes integrity and openness over political expediency. Only through such efforts can Valencia hope to restore its cultural institutions to their intended role as vibrant, diverse, and independent bastions of artistic expression.
