Ministry of Culture

Il Rapporto illustra le principali attività svolte dalla Direzione generale Archeologia belle arti e paesaggio del Ministero dei Beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo (oggi Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali) da luglio 2016, data in cui è diventata operativa a seguito della Riforma, fino ad agosto 2018. Per realizzare il presente Rapporto è stata coinvolta tutta la struttura organizzativa attraverso i contributi provenienti dai Servizi della direzione e dalle Soprintendenze territoriali.
Nel volume si è cercato di dare conto sia della nuova della struttura organizzativa introdotta dalla Riforma sia di tutte le attività svolte nei diversi ambiti di competenza a livello centrale e periferico, con l’intento di illustrare quanto più possibile – all’interno di uno snello rapporto e del breve tempo a disposizione per la sua redazione – la ricchezza e l’articolazione del vasto lavoro svolto dalla riorganizzazione del Ministero ad oggi.
Dopo la Relazione generale, nella prima sezione sono presentati i dati relativi alle principali procedure di autorizzazione, le nuove assunzioni, i fondi a disposizione per i lavori pubblici, gli interventi realizzati con l’Art Bonus. La seconda sezione è dedicata all’attività di ricerca che si esplica attraverso le riviste specialistiche e le banche dati gestiti dalla Direzione. La terza sezione è dedicata alle attività di promozione e valorizzazione della cultura del paesaggio, che ha particolarmente impegnato la Direzione in questi due anni. Nella quarta sezione sono riportate le principali linee d’indirizzo della Direzione attraverso una raccolta delle circolari più significative. La quinta sezione è invece interamente riservata all’attività delle Soprintendenze con sintetiche schede di presentazione di ogni Ufficio. L’ultima sezione è dedicata al futuro della “tutela integrata” e avanza diverse proposte elaborate con il contributo di tutti i dirigenti della Direzione e delle Soprintendenze.

The first Culture/Justice protocol was co-signed on the 25 th of July 1986 by Jack Lang and Robert Badinter.
Following the first international symposium about culture in prison (May-June 1985), this text formalised the
interdepartmental cultural policy in prison which had been in place since the beginning of the 1980's.
However, cultural activities have existed in French penal institutions since the Liberation. From choirs to
theatre groups including concerts, these were often categorised as educational, socio-cultural, recreational and
cultural activities. Initially organised by social assistants, they were then mostly led by prison educators. The
latter had been created as part of the Amor reform in 1946. Only a few penal institutions were affected by
these activites which were supposed to educate, observe and reform the prisoners. In the 1970's, because of
the prison crisis, a new reform was implemented which turned the cultural activities into a means of
rehabilitation and reintegration. In the early 1980's, this approach was transformed because of the intervention
of Minister Lang. New initiatives appeared ; for example, audio-visual technology. From then on, these were led
by artists, associations, and institutions from the world of creativity. The perspective of these new operators
was then to guarantee the right to culture for the detained individuals. Prison educators then had to convert
into coordinators. Consequently, activities depended on the local cultural fabric. Therefore, the penitentiary
administration had to reorganise in order to take on board these new operations.

From the Liberation to the begining of the 1980's, jail libraries are managed by the penitentiary administration and are organised according to penal reasoning. Handled by penitentiary staff, social workers, educators or convict-librarians, they receive very few help from public libraries. In spite of that – and particularly thanks to the penitentiary administration's central service for libraries –, they rationalise their organisation and get more and more similar to other libraries' fonctionning.

The first Culture/Justice protocol was co-signed on the 25 th of July 1986 by Jack Lang and Robert Badinter.
Following the first international symposium about culture in prison (May-June 1985), this text formalised the
interdepartmental cultural policy in prison which had been in place since the beginning of the 1980's.
However, cultural activities have existed in French penal institutions since the Liberation. From choirs to
theatre groups including concerts, these were often categorised as educational, socio-cultural, recreational and
cultural activities. Initially organised by social assistants, they were then mostly led by prison educators. The
latter had been created as part of the Amor reform in 1946. Only a few penal institutions were affected by
these activites which were supposed to educate, observe and reform the prisoners. In the 1970's, because of
the prison crisis, a new reform was implemented which turned the cultural activities into a means of
rehabilitation and reintegration. In the early 1980's, this approach was transformed because of the intervention
of Minister Lang. New initiatives appeared ; for example, audio-visual technology. From then on, these were led
by artists, associations, and institutions from the world of creativity. The perspective of these new operators
was then to guarantee the right to culture for the detained individuals. Prison educators then had to convert
into coordinators. Consequently, activities depended on the local cultural fabric. Therefore, the penitentiary
administration had to reorganise in order to take on board these new operations
activities ; film club ;
reading club ; choir ; music ; drama ; télévision ; radio ; fine arts, audiovisual ; newspaper ; ;

Continued neglect for the heritage of the Egyptian Surrealist movement, despite a resurgence in interest abroad, raises questions about the politics of culture in Egypt.

This article was originally published in Akhbar Al-Adab and was translated to English for the Cairo Review of Global Affairs.

This paper deals with the updating of Tropi­calia in the field of cultural policies with the arrival of Gilberto Gil at the Ministry of Culture in 2003. From the recovery of a tropicalista identity in his public stance, the musician­-manager did emerge reflections on a “tropicalista way” of thinking about culture. Thus, we intend to understand which elements present in Gilberto Gil’s management indicate a survival of Tropicalia in contemporary times. Without losing sight of the semantic instability of this Brazilian artis­tic and cultural manifestation, we prefer the path that points to the rupture character and to the utopian possibilities of this sign. We realize, finally, in this ap­proach, a notion of culture that takes into account the digital, the creativity of multitude, the difference, an­d also calls into the question a hegemonic and univo­cal model of Brazil.

Archaeological archives are refered to be documents produced during archaeological excavations, but also all the administrative records linked with it. It concerns also the achives of research and teaching activities. Supervised by specific statues in law, these records are public for the most part, but subject to copyright. Their diversity of production, material and life cycle, added to a multiplicity of institutions management, complicate their process. Yet, these records are considered as essential primary sources to revisit archaeological datas, or, more even, trace back an history of the field. Universities archives services, research units, and regional archaeological services, professional networks are currently building promising management tools and heritage projects.

Les archives de l'archéologie regroupent sous cette appellation la production documentaire liée à une opération archéologique, préventive ou programmée, et les pièces administratives s’y rapportant. Parallèlement, elle englobe l'ensemble des activités de recherche et d'enseignement en archéologie. Encadrées par des textes législatifs spécifiques, ces archives sont de nature majoritairement publique mais soumises aux droits d'auteur. La diversité de production, de supports et de cycles de vie, conjuguée à une gestion dépendant de nombreuses institutions et tutelles, compliquent la prise en charge de ces fonds. Pourtant, ceux-ci sont considérés comme des sources primaires essentielles pour une révision de données, ou, plus largement, pour retracer l'histoire de la discipline. Des services d'archives de MSH ou d'université, des services régionaux de l'archéologie, des réseaux professionnels se mobilisent et mettent actuellement en place des projets et des outils de gestion et de valorisation, porteurs d'espoir.