You can appear in a picture yet have little influence over what others are meant to see in it. You can be invited to a consultation without having a say in the decision. There is a distinction between visibility and having a voice that we should take more seriously in the cultural sector.
Our articles for the week of 21–28 October approach this from very different directions: from photographic portraiture and access to leadership roles to the use of cultural data. For me, they suggest a proposition for cultural policy: participation does not begin simply when people are included. It must be judged by the influence they have over the terms of their involvement.
Who tells the story, who decides?
Our article “Krankheit zeigen, ohne Menschen auf sie festzulegen” (Showing illness without defining people by it) looks at Herlinde Koelbl’s photographs of, and conversations with, people who have cancer. The title itself identifies a difficulty: making an experience visible does not mean that it explains a person in their entirety. The accompanying conversations can offer a voice of their own to counter the characterisation imposed by the photograph. How the two relate to one another remains a challenge of representation.
Similarly, “Dokumentarfilm: Die Verantwortung endet nicht mit dem Dreh” (Documentary film: responsibility does not end when filming stops) takes as its starting point the relationship between filmmakers and those who share their lives on camera. Here, we should neither be reassured by a signature nor be guided by a general suspicion of documentary practice. What matters is a serious mutual understanding of what someone is agreeing to — even if not every subsequent consequence can be predicted.
The obvious objection is that art needs the freedom to tell more, and different, stories than its participants intend. Quite right. A portrait is not an order confirmation; a documentary is not a collectively agreed self-image. Responsibility must not become a blanket right of veto. But artistic freedom is no reason to dismiss the power imbalance between the camera and the person facing it as irrelevant.
The invitation and the power
This distinction resurfaces politically in the debate over AI. Germany’s federal and state governments want to develop cultural data as infrastructure. Our background article “KI-Förderung: Wer bestimmt über die kulturellen Daten?” (AI funding: who controls cultural data?) therefore examines control, funding and participation. The policy outline itself mentions copyright protection and seeks to involve creative practitioners. To claim that it leaves them entirely unprotected would be inaccurate.
Yet it would be equally inadequate to treat the promised participation as a balancing of interests already achieved. The German Cultural Council questions precisely whether cultural stakeholders have the claimed power to shape developments in their dealings with technology corporations. The political test is therefore this: who gets a say in the terms of use, who is paid, and who can object to a particular use? These are demands for how the arrangements should be designed, not a description of rules already in force.
“Wer öffnet die Türen zur Kulturleitung?” (Who opens the doors to cultural leadership?) also touches on this threshold. Mentoring can provide access to knowledge and networks. That is tangible support. But if we want fairer access, we must not merely prepare female applicants for institutions. We must also ask how those institutions select people and whom they trust with responsibility.
Not every decision belongs to everyone
Having more of a say does not mean that a museum, a film crew or a jury should make every decision in a plenary session. Clearly assigned responsibilities also protect independence; expertise and aesthetic judgement cannot be replaced by votes. That is precisely why procedures should be transparent: who was heard? What could that voice change? Who bears ultimate responsibility?
Our essay on John Berger asks where we see from. After this week, I would add another question: where are decisions made from? An open culture does not have to agree with everyone. But it should recognise the difference between the people it depicts and the people it allows to have influence.
Original reviewed by the editors · 28 October 2026
