As far as the question of culture is concerned, I believe that at least one distinction should be made. One thing is creation and another is heritage. Heritage is what remains when creation is assimilated. What Ikastolas teach us is cultural heritage, creation is what we do when we conspire. Without the second is not the first (and vice versa), but it is not surprising that in ours the reality of culture, mountaineering (and complex), especially concerned with the patrimonial, cannot be covered: How is it possible that teenagers don't know Mikel Laboa? It is true that we have also been seriously weakened in this area in recent years, but limiting the whole cultural area to heritage is nothing good.

It is an irresistible temptation to think that cultural references can be planned, designed, so that today's young people enter the deception of Basque culture. However, like cultural dynamics, history shows us that this cannot be done, that no expert, cultural table, think tank can create anything right. Cultural strategies know a lot, how to deny it, but creating is another txakoli winery. The only thing we have to do is to see that not all of those we consider referents of the past were made public that way. Not the same Ez dok amairu, today so consensual, so glorified, so politically correct, it is known that it caused dissonance: they used the Spanish guitar as if they were too warm. And conversely, it is known that several decades earlier Aitzol (the main cultural strategist) had tried, through the Orixe pen, to get a poem that would awaken the Basque consciousness. That was the role of the poem Euskaldunak, but the result is already known: Today he barely remembers the poem, except for some college mole.

Some of you may think that we always like to bring debates to the blind on the streets, and you may ask: okay, creativity, cultural referents, you can't plan, but then what can we do? Let's see if talented creators get to work once and for all? Of course, a great deal of work can be done; it is a question of not making any unnecessary effort to produce what cannot be planned.

At the beginning of this century, Bernardo Atxaga published the concept of a resonance box. He said that the Basques need a resonance box, because otherwise, no one will listen to us outside our territory. With regard to the Basque culture, it seems that the cultural policy of the current CAPV Government, following the logic, never, late, seems to want to reinforce this line now. That is what Counsellor Bingen Zupiria put in when he took office as one of the main objectives, incorporating the language economist (consumption, industry, etc.). ), yes. Let's wait for the resonance box, of course, but culture also has other boxes, which are also needed.

Obviously, for resonance to exist, you have to have a prior sound, so you also have to take care of the box of sonances if you want to have a living culture. That is, in the classical style, to take care of the material conditions of the creators, or in other words, that the creators have a habitable life. There are strategies, plans, five-year plans, clusters and others, because, as we know, the precarious situation of Basque creators is not in any way. This has been denounced for a long time, but recently Maialen Errotabehere and Ander Lipus talked about it at the Durango Fair. That you want to plan, then, you have something to plan in this area. It completes a powerful and lasting network of creators who can help and support each other, facilitating production (Lipus said that besides being a creator is inevitably an entrepreneur), so that creators can dedicate their time to creating and not to administrative and other issues, expanding rooms and creation spaces, etc. The compact box of sonances is made up of similar cultural references in themselves. Of course, the managing politician, as he believes the public is his, will say, “OK, but when will I turn all that profitable? I need results: a festival, a bright show, a ponent conference, a non-sé-zer-lab, a mosque - something. I need media dancing around me, and with your boxes, party.”

The other is the dissonance box. It is a sensitive issue, because power, both administrative and non-administrative, prefers to leave it. But a living culture is the one with dissonance, the one that questions the limits of consensus, like the limits of culture itself. Moreover, as previously suggested, many of the consensus cultures that we now have as references were dissonant in the past: Ez dok amairu, Rock Radikal Vasco, Ustela eta Pott… And what dissonance requires is freedom, a free space for the creator to act as autonomously as possible. If it comes to caring for something, this free space is also the one that institutions, agents, etc. can take care of. of culture. Even more so in these times when freedom of expression is undergoing a sharp decline. This does not mean that we always have to match the content of the dissonant culture, but that we have to guarantee its expressive possibility. Incidentally, the need to make such determinations is merely a sign of the seriousness of the current situation.

In the field of culture there is also much to plan and promote, but it is impossible to do so without taking into account the very dynamics of creative practices. When planners, strategists and others start to get their noses where they don't belong, you can only expect catastrophe. We have a lot of work to take care of sonance and dissonance and resonance before we start to get tangled up with other people's tasks.