Miguel_alvear: Is there a hint of change in the panorama? Almost all of us who have been chatting here, including Maria del Carmen who just spoke, have worked in institutions and have not had good experiences. May anything be done in order to modify the status quo?

rodolfito104: Institutions will only be able to generate sporadic sparks of lucidity, but while the panorama to resolve their management issues doesní­t become more professional, sustainability will be impossible to achieve, and as bureaucratized as the situation is, and with the political nepotism connected with these appointments, I foresee any significant change as being difficult to achieve. For a couple of years now I have maintained that independent spaces are the only way out.

Miguel_alvear: Rodolfo, you and a group of people connected with art in Guayaquil have formed a "citizení­s supervisory". Explain a little about what this entails, what are its objectives and mechanisms?

rodolfito104: What we want to do is inform the public, to enable them to make judgments and evaluations regarding the cultural management of diverse public institutions. We think that if a great mass was able to see the limitations of these, perhaps it would demand a change. In practice, ití­s a difficult task. For example, the Supervisory seems — in its initial appearances — innocuous against the status quo, thereí­s a whole social framework that validates the management of the MAAC. As you all know, the management of this museum was seen as a light at the end of the tunnel for a broadening of cultural idea in this country. Beyond any discussion regarding the projects proposed there, these determined a paradigm shift with respect to the function of a museum. The reasons for the abandonment and dismantling of these impulses can only speak to the personal callousness and mental dwarfism with which we Ecuadorians always sabotage ourselves. The arguments and intellectual or academic discussions are reduced to what may be seen as personal quarrels, and against this media driven public manipulation not much can be done. We circulate our bulletins principally via the Internet and, up until now, the press has been quite skeptical. There has been an entire campaign to contain the phenomenon and apparently it has functioned at a media level. Some people have commented to me that they see us as potentially dangerous, and all this works against the impact that we want to achieve and the reflections that we want to encourage. So, because of this, several of us in the cultural supervisory, have considered how inappropriate its methods and strategies are in a medium where debates are won in the communication media and with few arguments.

criszapata68: I believe that the topic of the Supervisory opens an important area of debate. But to content ourselves with the role of surveillance or watchmen, Ií­m not sure will take us very far. More belligerent strategies have to be implemented. If we doní­t have power, nothing will happen, we could end up a collective onanistic army, doní­t you think?

mdc1carrion: I agree, either you integrate into the institution in order to change things or you begin something from the outside. I also agree with Maria Fernanda regarding the possibilities of resources and the symbolic possibilities that the institutions have and, despite everything, I believe that the best way to foment that is produced by way of direct action, the generation of projects and attempts at all possible negotiations in order to make this happen. Obviously, I believe that — as all here present have experienced — ití­s not always possible. But it is either that or build something entirely from the outside, like some projects I see beginning to take shape in Ecuador. But the attitude of wanting to be a critic of the institutions, or a watchdog, woní­t lead to much, it has to be a pro-active criticism, one that generates something and doesní­t just pour salt on the wound.

Miguel_alvear: All of you have participated in institutionally-managed projects. Could you briefly share your experiences?

mfcartagena: An important project was Traslado: de la Mitad del Mundo llega a la Casa de la Cultura (Transfer: The Middle of the World arrives at the Casa de la Cultura), which was made possible when I held the position of Museum Director for the Casa de la Cultura and I invited Artes No Decorativas, made up of Manuela Ribadeneira and Nelson Garcia, to develop this project. The Casa de la Cultura is an area sufficiently controversial as to convert it into the "center of the world" and it was also totally foreign to contemporary art. To invite new followings, to explore the potential of administering public art from the institution was to face the possibilities of these practices. The production of the "monument" was possible thanks to the auspices raised, for the good or bad of the symbolic capital of the institution.

Miguel_alvear: Why did you leave your position as director of the museum?

mfcartagena: Because the work becomes exhausting when there wasní­t an adequate allocation of financial resources. This obviously implicates the incoherent structures of higher-sphere cultural policies. In my view, the priorities should tend toward a direction that permits the Museum to occupy a conspicuous position in the cultural environment, reviewing the value of the collections, as a basic requirement. At the same time, it should urgently implement an inventory and cataloguing structure of the patrimonial treasures. Basic equipment is another of the fundamental tools, as well as the contracting or nominating of specialized technical personnel as a foundation to an efficient management team. There were many, many deficiencies that at the time were not addressed by the higher ups.

mdc1carrion: The exhibition I curated at the City Museum was oriented towards encouraging a greater participation in contemporary art within the museumí­s program, as an expression of the city. I sought to include young artists in research teams, to open the spaces for artists of different disciplines, based on the value of their work and not the recommendations that they brought with them, and to commission new works, thus stimulating production. Regrettably, the lack of vision on the part of the museumí­s administration impeded other projects and collaborations being concreted with other curators and artists, from Ecuador and other countries.