How did you decide to start a private, non-government cultural initiative in Bulgaria?
The idea itself came in the mid-90s when we decided to found a venue where the audience could see performances they couldn't find in the official cultural programmes. It all started almost like a youthful dream. Of course, the idea changed and developed until it became what is now: the Red House - a centre for culture and debate. Maybe it wasn't hard, but the whole process took a long time - we had to find a building, then to renovate it and to raise funding. As a result, we generated the Red House as a place where different groups of people can meet and discuss all kinds of topics and perform alternative arts as well; a place where new, interesting viewpoints can be expressed. So that's how the Red House officially opened for visitors in October 2004.

So, five years after the start of the project, and two after the actual opening of the Red House, do you have any "followers" in the non-government sector?
I don't want to be too negative or too enthusiastic. It's 2006 now and we're still a cultural precedent. I don't mean that there should be another Red House, but state cultural policy in this field hasn't changed at all since we started. There is still momentum and conservatism when it comes to private-public partnership in culture. We're still the only one that uses state property, with the commitment to renovate the building, and perform some important, public-orientated activity. So, I think we did our best in the field we're good at, to create a new profile, to reconsider the whole status quo. Of course, besides the audience who can be defined as our followers, there are a lot of NGOs, even in the field of culture, which are very active. However, the Red House is already a culture to follow; we can say there is a Red House generation.

The co-operation between the state and the private cultural sector is a two-sided partnership. Do you think the state is a passive partner?
I want to avoid giving any definitions of state policy, but in my opinion, the state should be more proactive. Its role should be to create adequate mechanisms and to apply them to develop the cultural sector. Moreover, the cultural sector doesn't end up only with the private sector, but neither does it end up only with the state-operated cultural institutions. At the moment, the state cultural policymakers are focusing on problems which are peripheral to what the development of the cultural sector here needs. They do not notice that their essential task is to produce working mechanisms and principles, not cultural products.

And as a result can we say that the cultural institution hasn't learnt how to act adequately after the democratic changes in 1989?
To me, in 2006 we still have an unreformed cultural field. I can say many other sectors have been reformed because of Bulgaria's future joining with the EU, adjusting Bulgarian legislation to the European standards. Meanwhile, the Bulgarian cultural sphere remains the same, maybe because there aren't any special requirements for reforms in this field. Right now, the culture policy looks like a picture from the past.

So, adequacy means establishing clear mechanisms and principles for all areas - regional, state, private - which will give them an equal start to benefit from the cultural resources governed by the Ministry of Culture. On the other hand, the state doesn't have a defined policy about the priority sectors it wants to stimulate. It just prefers to keep the `social peace'. By social peace I mean cultural institutions are afraid to change the current status quo because they don't know what consequences change could bring. That's why they're keeping a good, acceptable appearance of culture, but an appearance that doesn't lead anywhere. It seems as if we are missing the present again because we're concerned to take action and develop a mechanism and apply principles which will move us forward.

In your opinion, which are the main cultural issues that should be reformed?
The main problem is the lack of cultural strategy to determine the progress of the field for years to come. It should also provide clear and transparent criteria about the apportionment and distribution of the financial resources that are accumulated by the Ministry of Culture. A certain system of competitions should be established as well. In this way, both state and private organisations can benefit from state money. This is the responsibility of the state - to announce the priority sectors and to support their development, from national historical heritage to contemporary expressions of art.

What about contemporary art? Is it a priority of the state?
We have to say it's not. It's left to live on its own. Judging from my experience during the past years, there're a great variety of positive activities and creative happenings in the private cultural sector. At the same time, there's oncoming danger that threatens us. Many of the donors that have nurtured non-government cultural initiatives have been, and are, leaving because the country is joining the EU - a bigger family with its own funding. In this way, the private sector is in jeopardy of being homeless again, considering the state is not even aware of non-government activities.

What are your observations of the audience of contemporary art?
I think we managed to find the best balance in our cultural programme. On one hand, the average age of the people who visit our art performances is young - mostly between 18 and 40 years. On the other hand, we have an audience which is tempted by our political and public debates and is not that young. So, we have all kinds of guests at the Red House. The idea is that they all to start get interested in each other as well. The most important thing, however, is that they're not prejudiced. I'm glad that most of people keep visiting us after having their first visit.

Do you think we have a special venue, like an art cafe or a bar, where the visitors are mostly artists?
I'm not sure if such place exists, but I'm very glad to say that we're opening an art spot. In April, we're opening a cafe, which I hope will be a natural addition to the Red House style and will attract such guests. We'd like to offer our visitors the opportunity to continue the evening after the cultural event they have come to attend.

The Red House Centre for Culture and Debate
15 Liuben Karavelov Street, Tel: 988 8188,
986 4416    www.redhouse-sofia.org