Conversation got postponed twice: the first time, because all signs in heaven and on earth indicated that the documents necessary to obtain visas for a Gdansk theater would not arrive on time, and the New York event would have to be cancelled, even though eager audiences already awaited impatiently; the second time, because heaven and earth were moved to make the visas come through, and we had to work out the details.

As before, the interview took place over the phone. Well, what can you do, that’s life! She was in New York, I in Chicago. We both nestled in the coziest spots in the house, the phone in one hand and the favorite mug filled with coffee in the other.

A rather deep, raspy voice recalls a book she once read, a lavishly illustrated volume on Michael Angelo. She was twelve then, and wanted to know the story behind every one of his sculptures.

She never betrayed her childhood dream: she studied art history, with a focus on film theory and urban design.

As soon as she got her passport in 1989, she rushed off to Europe in order to “touch” what had fascinated her so much. Around that time, United States and Poland signed a reciprocal agreement concerning the foundation of Cultural and Information Centers. An American institute soon opened in Warsaw, only to be closed shortly afterwards, while Poland, still waiting for an economic boost, took ten years to fulfill its side of the agreement. In the meantime, a fresh art history graduate had no shortage of ideas for life.

I wanted to do my Ph.D. in London, and then start a TV program, cultural, of course, all the while toying with several other ideas. Most of them turned out completely unrealistic. I ended up working for a company importing film equipment to Poland, and edited a popular scientific magazine devoted to film technologies. Both of these jobs turned out quite interesting, and were a solid introduction to the media.

When the situation in Poland began to stabilize, the Ministry of Fo-reign Affairs started transforming its approach to presenting an image of Poland abroad and adapting it to the changing needs. One of them was the presence of Polish culture in the world. In 1999, when four new cultural institutes were about to be opened and sought qualified people to promote Polish culture, Monika Fabijańska answered the call. She took the responsibility of preparing legal and organizational foundations for the institutes.

A week into the job, and I knew I found my place.

In 2000, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs created four Polish Cultural Institutes: in New York, Tel Aviv, Petersburg, and Sofia. The very year, Monika Fabijańska found herself in the world capital of culture, where—together with Paweł Potorczyn, the first director of the Institute—she set out to create a cultural organization from scratch. Afterwards, they were joined by Krzysztof Janicki, the admini-strative director and accountant who, in fact, performs these functions to this day.

A Polish diplomat’s term of office lasts four years, and can be renewed by another year under special circumstances. The Institute directors are chosen on the basis of a competition. After Potorczyn’s end of term, Fabijańska presented her candidacy. Since October 2005, as Director, she has continued to break anti-Polish stereotypes and build the best possible image of Poland in the eyes of American intellectual and cultural elites.

As much as I dislike the metaphor, culture is the pass-key to interpersonal communication. Cultural representatives have always tried to mediate delicate situations. States take advantage of this non-invasive way when other, official ways of communication fail. After all, it is much easier to understand others if you know their culture. In conflict situations this may be the only communication path available, and in peacetime—a vital element of intercultural dialogue.

In today’s world, and we speak of developed countries, one product resembles another, and all the difference lies in packaging, in philosophy, and in ideas that can be constructed around it. This approach is practiced by companies aiming at selling their products, but also by particular countries wishing to influence their image abroad.

In this context, we can perceive Poland either as a country that offers the tastiest sausage and pierogi in the world and little besides, or as a country with a rich theatre tradition. The question is: which opinion is going to prevail. Of course, a similar schema applies to all nations, all countries.

I wonder how many years of meticulous work is needed for Poles to cease being perceived, not just by the elites but by the general public, as a thatch-roof and sausage nation...

Life is not just bread, it’s also spirit. And if we speak of Polish culture, with its multi-voiced expression, we cannot doubt its level of sophistication. In my work, as in any emigrant’s life, what matters is to have no complexes and to get one’s job done. There is enough room in the world for everyone, as there is for everyone’s culture. However, we must be aware of the complexity of our own culture which is in no way inferior to others and which is at the center of our national identity.

New Yorkers like professionalism, they like things to be worked out to perfection, in a word, they seek the highest quality. Europeans are similar in that respect, although American tastes tend to differ from ours.

Sometimes I was not sure how Americans would respond to a given offer, and then it turned out that they loved it. At other times, I was expecting standing ovations, and got a polite applause. It is much easier to accept something that is already familiar. Kantor and Grotowski have been known to American audiences for a long time; this is also true for performances by such theatre troupes as Gardzienice,
Wierszalin, or Pieśń Kozła.

We are pursuing the same goals, yet without being limited to the 1970s avant-gardes. There is also Jarzyna and Warlikowski; there is documentary theatre; and there are many other new trends. In general, we are trying to bring to American audiences a variety of esthetical viewpoints. We want to move forward, which means respecting the past without being stuck in it.

Since its inception, the Institute has been running a successful program of research visits to Poland.

We invite specialists from different domains to come to Poland, and they themselves choose what they will want to subsequently present to American audiences. We keep up with cultural events in Poland, as well as elsewhere in the world, and are aware of most current trends. Thanks to these visits, Americans feel a shared responsibility for projects we are trying to implement. Unlike six years ago, today we have a waiting list of people lined up to go to Poland precisely in the context of upcoming projects!

Most projects receive support from respected American organizations, each of which has a faithful public. This way we manage to broaden our audiences. People find out about our existence and learn about our culture. They nourish a positive image of Polish theatre, art, film, architecture, and of all other aspects of our country.

We place a great emphasis on working with universities. Today’s students are tomorrow’s American elites, and it is with them in mind that we create our offer.

The institute operates in a city where there are ten thousand galleries; where there a several thousand events each evening; and where, necessarily, the greatest efforts have to focus on turning a potential viewer into a participant in a Polish cultural event. And that’s not easy.

This is precisely why we are cooperating with the most influential people on the cultural arena. It is up to us to inspire thoughts, ideas, forms, but when we create something, we do it hand in hand with Americans. This way we all feel responsible for the success of each event. Well-funded professional marketing plays here a crucial role.

There remains the question of funding. Part of the budget for the projects comes from the government, but the rest is supplied by American organizations which see the advantage of participating in Polish cultural initiatives.

Some of our projects fit within a budget of four thousand dollars; others exceed half a million. As a non-profit organization, we are not allowed, of course, to benefit from the events. We can accept donations, but we cannot make any money. So, now, would an institution or a private donor put money into an event that risks being a flop? I don’t think so. The obvious conclusion must be: we are good at what we’re doing! We have wonderful cultural events and know how to present them in a very professional way. Consequently, even people who have traveled the world sampling different cultures delight in what we have to offer.

What amazes me is that the Polish Institute was run for a long time by only three people! Today you are five. Everyone has his or her area of responsibility, and each contributes to the overall agenda. Each person seems to work as a necessary part in a well-functio-ning machine. Agata Grenda is the vice-director and a theatre expert; Tomasz Smolarski works as the chief of marketing, while assisting in music and film projects; Krzysztof Janicki, whom we have mentioned earlier, is the administrative director and accountant; and Katarzyna Kaim took on the role of a much-needed secretary.

Two thirds of our team never stands in the limelight to receive the applause; but the truth is that, without their work, no project would have a chance to succeed. Just to show the proportions: the Germans have seventeen institutions like ours in the United States! And there are fifty seven people employed in their New York division alone! And yet, we hear, we are the ones to be seen, and we are the talk of the town. That is something to be proud of.

I have no need to work with a large group of people. An optimal number would be ten, and I hoped to sort out all administrative issues to accommodate at least seven, but other urgent matters arose in mid-season. Our fall program already included forty two projects. Starting in January, however, we should have a seven-person team.

All events prepared by the Polish Cultural Institute in New York are presented in English, which does not mean, of course, that the Polish community is not among the target audiences.

Our contacts with the Polish community are similar to those we have with the Americans, since a Polish American is also an American. There are many native-born Americans who don’t speak a word of Polish, but who had, for instance, Po-lish grandfathers. There also those who learned the Polish language to read Gombrowicz. That’s really impressive!

Such Americans are the true ambassadors of Poland, wherever they wind up in the world. In fact, anyone who propagates Polish culture in his or her surroundings becomes such an ambassador.

This young, merely thirty-something-year-old woman emanates with such energy, such force and faith in the value of her day-to-day activities, that I need not worry about the
image of Poland abroad. It was precisely after this conversation that I felt I should start spelling “Polish culture” with capital C.