Lars Ebert: A compass is only valuable if we start walking

Events & Activities ArtcultureTop News Lars Ebert: A compass is only valuable if we start walking Lars Ebert Relevant News Lars Ebert: A compass is only valuable if we start walking 26 June 2026 Cyprus weather: 37°C inland on Friday with mountain showers possible and fog risk overnight 26 June 2026 Overnight pharmacies on Thursday, June 25 25 June 2026 Diana Aza 26 June 2026 FacebookXWhatsAppEmailPrintViber As Europe navigates a period of profound change and rising tension, culture can serve as a space for reflection and renewal. So argues Lars Ebert, Secretary General of Culture Action Europe, the continent’s largest network of cultural organisations. Speaking to Philenews on the sidelines of the “Ask, Pay, Trust” conference held in Cyprus, Ebert discusses the legacy Larnaka 2030 should leave behind, the role of culture in an era of growing polarisation, and artistic freedom as a measure of democratic health. You have stated that “we are constantly in the position of having to justify our existence”. Why is the cultural sector constantly called upon to prove its worth? Because there is still a persistent lack of trust in cultural processes. We are expected to explain in advance where we are going, what results we will produce and how our impact will be measured. However, culture does not always work in a linear or predictable way. Artistic processes have value precisely because they are free and capable of producing unexpected forms of knowledge, meaning and social connection. Culture is often expected to prove its worth through economic growth, social cohesion, innovation, or health. Although it contributes substantially to all these areas, its value cannot be limited to them. And the deeper question is why we don’t ask other democratic institutions to justify their existence in the same way. Culture should be supported as a public good in its own right, not only when it can demonstrate measurable benefits in other areas. You often talk about “cultural democracy”. How does this concept translate to specific policies and practices? Cultural democracy becomes a reality when the way cultural organizations make decisions, allocate resources, and connect with the communities that surround them changes. For many decades, cultural policy in Europe focused on what was called the “democratization of culture”, i.e. the dissemination of established cultural institutions and artistic works to wider audiences. This is still important. Cultural democracy, however, poses a different question: who has the right to define what culture is? Transforming cultural democracy into a political act means creating structures in which citizens, communities, artists and cultural organisations are not mere spectators or recipients of services, but active participants in shaping cultural life. How will the success of Culture Compass be judged? What do you think is missing from this? The Culture Compass is an important step because it gives culture a stronger place in the European debate. What makes it particularly valuable is that it has been co-shaped with the sector, including Culture Action Europe, that has produced a Sector Blueprint of the Compass, thus creating a sense of shared responsibility. The compass shows the direction, but the question is what allows us to move towards it. For me, three elements are decisive. Investments, implementation and utilization of this dynamic through a regular, substantive and institutionalized dialogue. What is still missing? The long-term perspective. Compass looks to the next few years, but we should already be discussing what the role of culture will be in Europe after 2029 and whether the current European competences in the field of culture meet the ever-increasing expectations. A compass is only valuable if we start walking. And the next step is to turn a shared vision into joint action. Why do you think the debate on European culture is particularly relevant today? For the fact that Europe is facing profound changes and tensions: democratic regression, geopolitical instability, climate transition, migration, technological upheavals and increasing social polarization. In times like these, societies need spaces where they can reflect on who they are, what values they stand for, and what future they wish to build together. When I talk about European culture, however, I do not mean that Europe should define a uniform identity. Quite the opposite. And the question is not whether there is a European culture. It already exists. Europe’s cultural richness stems from the diversity of its languages, histories, traditions and local contexts. At a time when many forces are trying to limit culture either to national narratives or to the logic of the market, Europe has the opportunity to show something different: that diversity and cooperation are not opposing concepts, but mutually reinforcing principles. Cyprus is a small country with a long experience of division, but also of the coexistence of different cultures. What can it bring to the European debate? It has a lot to offer precisely because it embodies some of the tensions that Europe is currently facing. Very often European debates around identity start from the assumption that identity is something stable, which we either possess or are called upon to defend. However, I believe that the European project, in its best form, has always been something different. It is about participating in a common process of shaping and evolving. That is why I find the idea of an ‘ever-making Europe’, as expressed through the Faro Convention and its emphasis on heritage communities and democratic participation, so appealing. Cyprus perhaps understands this reality better than many other regions of Europe. She has experienced division, conflict and competing narratives, but she has also experienced coexistence, exchange and the everyday experience of living with diversity. In this sense, Cyprus reminds us that cultural dialogue is the process through which societies move forward and that coexistence is the ability to build something together despite differences. At a time of increasing polarisation, this is perhaps one of the most important lessons that Europe can learn. What is the most important measure that governments can take today to improve the working conditions of cultural professionals? If I had to choose just one measure, it would be to ensure that everyone has access to adequate social protection, regardless of how they work. One of the key features of the sector is that many people are constantly moving between salaried work, self-employment, work-by-project, teaching, assignments, and periods of artistic research or creation. However, social protection systems are still often designed on the basis of more traditional forms of employment. As a result, they experience insecurity not because they do not work, but because the systems around them fail to recognize the peculiarities of cultural work. Improving working conditions therefore starts with the recognition of cultural work as work. This means ensuring access to social security, healthcare, pensions, unemployment protection and mobility rights, regardless of employment status and across national borders. The priority should be to create a framework that allows artists and cultural professionals to build sustainable careers regardless of their form of employment. The reality of cultural work does not easily fit into the traditional categories of the labour market and our policies must recognise this. What were the most important conclusions and key findings of the “Ask, Pay, Trust” conference in Cyprus? The title “Ask, Pay, Trust” comes from one of Culture Action Europe’s most recent advocacy campaigns. These three words sum up a simple idea: if society asks culture to contribute to democracy, prosperity, innovation or social cohesion, then it must also be prepared to adequately fund it and trust the sector to carry out this mission on its own terms. The conference in Cyprus was based precisely on this philosophy. What impressed me the most was the fact that they inspired the people of culture in Cyprus to participate in a collective process of self-reflection and forwardlooking analysis. The discussion focused on understanding the specific needs, potentials and challenges of the Cypriot cultural ecosystem, as well as on the question of the future that the sector itself wishes to build. What is the role of initiatives such as “Ask, Pay, Trust” for “Larnaca 2030”? I consider its connection with “Larnaca 2030” important, because the European Capitals of Culture are often evaluated based on what they deliver in a specific year. Their real value, however, lies in the discussions, collaborations and possibilities they create over time. I deeply believe in the mission of Larnaca 2030 and its potential to provide a long-term framework in which the cultural sector can meet regularly, exchange views and shape common ambitions. I am delighted that Culture Action Europe, together with other European networks and D6EU, are participating in the nomination dossier, with an annual event of which ‘Ask, Pay, Trust’ was the first edition. The most important conclusion of the conference was the recognition that a strong cultural sector needs a structured debate: a process that is continuous, iterative and capable of formulating common priorities, in order to develop into a reliable interlocutor of political actors for the formulation of public policy. What makes me optimistic is that all the necessary ingredients seem to be already there. “Larnaca 2030” has a long-term orientation. Culture Action Europe will remain a partner in this debate and stands ready to support the creation of local representation structures. The Deputy Ministry has also shown a willingness to participate. If this commitment continues, I believe that the conference will be remembered as the beginning of a lasting and meaningful dialogue. This can ultimately lead to its most important legacy: not just better cultural policies, but a shared vision of what cultural policy can become in Cyprus, shaped collectively by all those who have an interest in and participation in it. How can a European Capital of Culture leave a lasting legacy for the people of culture and for the city itself? Its most essential legacy is when it enhances the cultural ecosystem itself. This means stronger organisations, stronger networks, better cooperation between cultural operators, public authorities and communities, as well as a greater capacity of the sector itself to shape its future. I would consider it a success if, by 2030, the cultural sector in Cyprus is more connected, more organized and more self-confident than it is today. If cultural professionals have developed stronger mechanisms for cooperation and dialogue, if they have a more meaningful voice in policy-making, and if cultural policy itself has become more strategic and participatory, then the impact will far exceed over the course of a single year of title. For people of culture, heritage means creating conditions that allow for sustainable career paths. It means leaving behind not only cultural infrastructure, but also social infrastructure: relationships, trust, networks, knowledge and opportunities that will continue to support people long after the programme is over. For the city, heritage means strengthening its ability to function as a cultural meeting point. Larnaca has a unique opportunity to position itself as a place where local experiences are linked to wider European discussions. If it manages to continue to offer spaces for exchange, experimentation and collaboration beyond 2030, then the title will have achieved something truly timeless. Do you think that Europe underestimates the importance of culture as a factor of social resilience? In recent years, there has been a lot of emphasis on military security, energy security, cybersecurity, and economic security. However, resilience is about protecting the social fabric that allows societies to withstand crises, resist manipulation and act collectively in times of uncertainty. I am concerned that culture is often absent from discussions about resilience, even though Europe’s opponents clearly recognise its importance. Authoritarian regimes do not consider culture a luxury or a secondary area of policy. They perceive him as a source of power. They invest in narratives, symbols, memory, identity, and cultural influence because they know that social cohesion ultimately depends on these elements. This does not mean that culture should be turned into a tool of political security or a counter-propaganda mechanism. On the contrary, I would be very skeptical of such an approach. What culture can offer is to strengthen trust, strengthen communities, cultivate critical thinking, create opportunities for different people to meet and encourage participation in a common democratic debate. Do artists have a responsibility to take a clear stance in the face of conflict? One of the greatest strengths of art is its ability to maintain ambiguity. Artists and cultural organizations help societies resist easy answers and remain open to complexity, contradiction, and uncertainty. This in itself is a public good. At the same time, ambiguity does not mean the absence of values. Cultural institutions and cultural policy are based on the values that are the foundation of European democracy: human dignity, freedom, equality, the rule of law, pluralism and respect for human rights. What the current situation reminds us of is that social cohesion cannot be taken for granted. The war in Ukraine, the devastating human suffering in Gaza and the wider instability we are witnessing in different regions of the world are confronting Europeans with difficult questions about solidarity, identity, security and our relationship with others. These issues, in addition to being political or military, are also deeply cultural. Do you see increasing pressure on artistic freedom in Europe? Across Europe, we are witnessing increasing political interference in cultural institutions, pressure on programming, politicisation of funding, attacks on the autonomy of organisations, online harassment and increasing self-censorship. Many artists and organizations no longer ask themselves “can I say it?”, but “can I afford the cost if I say it?”. And this in itself constitutes a restriction of freedom. When people hear the term “artistic freedom,” they often think of censorship: a work that is banned, an exhibition that closes, a catalogue that is withdrawn or an artist that is prevented from speaking. These are still happening and remain worrying. More and more often, however, the pressures are more subtle and systemic. They occur in very different political environments and reflect a broader erosion of democratic culture and a growing intolerance of ambiguity, disagreement and complexity. The state of artistic freedom is also an indicator of the health of democracy itself. In a world characterized by polarization, misinformation and shrinking public space, the freedom of the artist and the freedom of the citizen meet. One cannot exist without the other. Protecting artistic freedom ultimately means protecting the right of all of us to imagine, question, and create the future we want to live in. Subscribe to our Newsletter Latest News Cyprus weather: 37°C inland on Friday with mountain showers possible and fog risk overnight Overnight pharmacies on Thursday, June 25 Man restrained by passengers on Larnaca to Manchester flight dies “I’d never go back”: the Liverpool couple who swapped rain and rising costs for a new life in Paphos Cyprus to pilot AI cameras targeting phone-using drivers to cut road deaths Clinging to their chairs… Stop dragging your feet — make decisions swiftly Follow en.philenews on Google News and be the first to know all the news about Cyprus and the world.