Jerzy Toeplitz:
In 1972

Wolfgang Klaue:
Then I will begin with some basic background questions. How did you fall in love with cinema? How did you come to FIAF? How did you get involved with film archives and the international film movement?

Jerzy Toeplitz:
Well, that seems to be an easy question, but it's not really so simple, after all.
Let's divide your questions into two chapters which are of course different, but which are nevertheless linked: my life in the cinema, and my interest in film archives.
First my connection with cinema. My first articles about cinema were written in 1928. At the beginning of the thirties, we had an organization in Poland known as "The Start." "Start" is of course a clever name because it means a beginning. But actually, "Start" is a word derived from two Polish words, "stowaniczenie," which means organization, and "artisticznie," which means artistic. "Start" was a group of people interested in the art of the cinema. Like my friends in "Start," I was interested in the social effects of the cinema. One of the slogans of "Start" was that we were fighting for socially useful films, which meant to us that we were for a "living" cinema which exposed spectators to new ideas, provided material for reflection on our conditions, and opened up new horizons.
I was active at that time as a film critic in one of the Polish newspapers, which gave me absolute freedom to write anything I liked and also gave me quite a lot of space: a whole page every week. So I wrote film criticism, articles on questions of the cinema, and short informational notes about what was going on in the world. I enjoyed this work very much, and it lasted from about 1930 to 1934.
Then I spent some time in England in the film industry. I was responsible for finding scripts. It was not a very good experience, but it was experience. I spent three years in London during the "blossoming" of the British cinema, during what was a great "boom" in British cinema and which ended, as we all know, in the financial catastrophe of the Depression. Shortly after I returned to Poland, the War came, and I completely lost interest in the cinema for a very simple reason: we boycotted the cinema, which was subject to the institutions of the German occupation, and all of the money went to the Treasury of the Third Reich. But immediately after the War, I resumed my activities in the cinema. I became involved in many aspects of Polish cinema culture; I was responsible for foreign relations of the Polish cinema, and from 1949 onward, I was also the head of the Polish Film School. In 1948 I went to Copenhagen for the FIAF Congress, and was elected president of FIAF. In Copenhagen, I met the pioneers of the film archive movement and became very interested in this movement.
I initiated what was called the "Centralne Arhivum Filmowe," the predecessor of today's Filmoteca Narodowa. If the archive can be said to be my first interest, my second interest was education, and my third, which resulted in my film lectures, was film history. These three preoccupations shaped my work in those years.
I worked on the history and theory of cinema (in the Polish Institute of Art); I worked in the film school and the film archive in Lodz until 1968. I continued my work from 1973 to 1979 in Sydney, Australia.
After my return to Poland in 1980, I attended the FIAF Congress in Rapallo, Berlin and Paris, but I cannot say that the links that existed were close. I was more or less an observer, unable to participate actively. I was at some of the executive committee meetings, such as the one in Rome. But it was not the same as before my Australian 'exile'. This long absence was one of the reasons why I declined to write my observations regarding the future of FIAF. I felt that I might simply reiterate past decisions or yield to the temptation to use my observations for self-justification or to 'settle old scores'. But speaking metaphorically and poetically, my heart is still very much with the film archive movement and the idea of FIAF.

Wolfgang Klaue:
I think this is more or less the case for all of the honorary members of FIAF who were so devoted to the work of the film archives: we were active for a certain period, and then after that time, we look at FIAF from the outside, as observers. The period of your presidency in FIAF was a very complicated period characterized by two serious conflicts: the Cold War and the antagonism of Langlois.
In this period when many international organizations collapsed or were damaged, when many were paralyzed, politicized or rendered unable to continue their professional orientation, FIAF continued. I think FIAF's survival in those times in large part is due to your ability to balance the conflicting interests and find mutually agreeable solutions, even under the most difficult circumstances. And you also managed to resolve the conflict between Henri Langlois and the Federation. The integrity and unity of the Federation somehow survived intact. I admired you in those times.
When I examine the history of FIAF, it has a certain fascination for me. I think the early days of the Federation were very creative. Many interesting ideas were proposed and discussed; not many of these ideas were realized though. But the creativity was there, and there was a great identification with the spirit of the institution on the part of nearly every FIAF participant. I remember your accounts describing the Copenhagen Congress, a group of twelve people who convened rather informally. Now FIAF is ten times larger, much more complicated to organize and manage, and there is a much greater diversity op opinion within the organization. But I feel there is a lack of creativity and identification, and I suspect the growth of the organization has something to do with this. But how do you regard the recent development of FIAF in comparison with the early years?

Wolfgang Klaue:
I agree with what you are saying, but there are also some objective factors which had an impact on the Federation. The archives in some countries are no longer managed by the 'film maniacs' you cited, but by persons with film historical knowledge, cultural knowledge, but at the same time managerial persons nevertheless, who cannot have the same relationship to film as the archival pioneers had. Many archives have become large institutions, and those days when the curator was the person responsible for all aspects of the archive, from film history to cataloguing and preservation, air conditioning, access policy and legal matters, are long gone. Duties have become more diverse. Managing an archive requires the capacity to bring all kinds of specialists together and coordinate their work. The price of the evolution of the film archives as institutions has been the loss of the primal relationship to the medium of cinema. I found myself in exactly this situation. There came a time when I could no longer pay as much attention as I wanted to film; I had to supervise and manage all operations: budgeting, staff problems, security, health protection, acquisition, cataloguing, preservation, construction and renovation, access, the archive cinema's exhibition, foreign relations and many, many other problems. Most of my time was consumed by administrative activities. And I think this changing reality, which seems to be a general phenomenon, had, and continues to have, an impact on FIAF.
The question of the cultural function of film archives has a new dimension today. Is the archive simply a place for collecting, storing and restoring films, or has it a wider role in disseminating film culture and film art in times when this tradition is endangered?
In the past, the Federation was to a substantial degree defined by the creative contradiction between Lindgren and Langlois, clearly organized around the two basic functions of an archive: to preserve, but also to make accessible what is preserved. This active antagonism is perhaps what distinguishes the film archive from the paper archive. We should recognize the specificity of the film archive from the paper archive. We should recognize the specificity of the film archive in this contradiction, and FIAF should make a greater effort to explore this problem. Today, archives are understood primarily as places for collecting, preserving and cataloguing, as 'warehouses' which exist only to give access to films. We should really question this reduced cultural identity; we should ask why the archives, which were born out of the creative antagonism between preserving and showing, out of the dialogue between Lindgren and Langlois, seem incapable today of providing their own cultural initiative. This present condition is the impetus for our reflections today on the history of FIAF.
But I want to follow up on another issue you raised. When speaking about the early years of the Federation, you frequently referred to cinema as an art. This approach dominated the development of FIAF. To my great surprise, one of my colleagues wrote recently in a paper about the future of FIAF that "equal rights" must be accorded to the actuality film. In my own archival practice, I've always understood film as art and as historical document, as a source of information and education. What was the place of film as document in the early years of FIAF?

Wolfgang Klaue:
You always come back to the position that FIAF should contribute more to film history, to film art, to the medium that archives preserve. Let's turn for a moment to an institutions problem that you cited in an earlier conversation: the problem of publicity. Very little is known about FIAF outside the context of our organization. We are often faced with the criticism that the Federation is a very exclusive, very expensive club which has its own arcane rituals for entry and membership.

Jerzy Toeplitz:
Right you are.

Wolfgang Klaue:
And this is a failure of communication on the part of FIAF. FIAF has never been successful in representing itself to the larger world, including many cognate cultural institutions with which FIAF might have natural affinities and productive alliances.

Jerzy Toeplitz:
Yet there have been some promising initiatives. You personally moved us in a positive direction and did a superb job with UNESCO.

Wolfgang Klaue:
We achieved some notable successes: the UNESCO Recommendation for the Safeguarding and Preservation of Moving Images, in 1980, which was the integration of film preservation into the UNESCO program. The higher degree of general recognition of the work we perform resulted in a meeting last year between the Director General of UNESCO, Mr Federico Major, and filmmakers and film archivists.
But the Federation must do better. We have to create more positive publicity, a higher public profile, and a greater public awareness of what we are doing. Without public recognition, we will never attract sponsors, and never find the institutions and individuals capable and willing to contribute in financial terms to FIAF. We need the support of government, for individual archives as well as for the Federation. So publicity must be regarded as a permanent issue. In the past, we had a flag, and even a hymn. But more often, we had discussions within the Federation about an award which could be given at international festivals. We discussed the idea of a FIAF medal for those persons (perhaps outside the Federation) who contributed to the goals of FIAF. But these ideas were never realized because of differences of opinion within the Executive Committee. Perhaps FIAF should use the 100th anniversary of the cinema as an occasion to reflect again on these and other proposals to increase world-wide recognition of the film archive movement.
Another issue: film museums. The rise of these institutions and the need to define the relations between FIAF, its member archives and the film museums, has become an important feature of the configuration of contemporary film culture. How far should the Federation go in embracing the film museums? The time when FIAF was a fixed constellation of de facto national archives is long over. With the enormous growth and recognition of media, regional and local archives represent the most rapidly developing sector in many areas of traditional archival activity: film collection, documentation, preservation, scholarly access and exhibition, as well as other, non-traditional forms of access. And there is a second tier of problems associated with the proliferation of organizations of archives and other media institutions. FIAF is now forced to compete for recognition and resources with related and partly overlapping institutions such as IASA, ICA, IFLA, IFTA, and AMIA. FIAF has indeed reached a turning point in its history, based largely on these external developments.
I think that during your long tenure in FIAF, you also had such turning points, and FIAF always seemed to be able to adapt to new realities. For me, one of the most significant moments for FIAF was the new York Congress in 1969. This Congress saw the culmination of a long debate concerning the integration of new archives, a development which played itself out as a sort of confrontation between the 'Old Guard' and the archives of the emerging 'Third World.' Ernest Lindgren defined the position of the 'Old Guard': he was willing to accept into FIAF only those archives which were established and structured like his own. Fortunately, you helped us forge a compromise that allowed FIAF to accept embryonic archives, archives in an early stage of development. And we were right to do this. After 10 or 20 years, these new institutions (which often started as cine-clubs, the model which most often gave rise to those institutions which later became the 'Old Guard' archives) became true national collections, serious and important in the cultural landscape of their respective regions of Latin America, Asia and Africa. I remember the 'opening of the Federation' as a permanent source of argument between myself and another member of the 'Old Guard', Jacques Ledoux. Jacques was always very critical about my support of the policy of opening the Federation to these new archives, and his opposition continued even as he distanced himself from the Federation in later years.
FIAF today is again in a position of having to define its future development. How far should we go? How open to these new and different institutions can FIAF be, and if we alter membership, how will this new latitude reshape the basic ideas of the Federation? At one point in our history, you were responsible for the introduction of a radical new system in FIAF: membership was reformed, 'national' membership (where each member essentially functioned as a 'national archive' representing the cinema of a given country) became 'institutional' membership (where each archive was recognized and accepted for its own contributions to cinema culture and the film archive movement). We had to go to great lengths to contain and suppress and advance the old ideal of one 'national archive' which could (and necessarily should) represent the cinematic tradition and physical film collection of a country. The reformation of the old system was not purely altruistic; it was done for motives which were very clearly political: the necessity of finding a solution for the specific German case, the adoption of the Stiftung Deutsche Kinemathek from (West) Berlin. How do you perceive these events from the perspective of 1994?

Wolfgang Klaue:
I once proposed the wording "working on a national level" in Article 4, when we discussed changes of statutes and rules. It was a compromise between the national membership and a certain philosophy to restrict the membership in FIAF, to open the doors very little, to have a very controlled, growing membership. The present situation really forces FIAF to reconsider this definition and the philosophy behind it.
I remember the endless debates we had in the executive committee on the autonomy and independence of archives. But archives did not develop as defined in theory, in the statutes and rules. In reality, there was a world much richer in its diversity of archival models and structures, and FIAF had no means of changing that reality. Did we 'overstate' or 'overwrite' these criteria, which are still part of the Federation's Statutes and Rules?

Jerzy Toeplitz:
I don't think that the Statutes and Rules work. I think our compromises took us to the limits of possibility. What we wanted, what we intended, was to have at our Congresses and meetings, representatives, archivists and curators who would be fully responsible and fully cognizant of what is going on in the larger organization (the Federation).

Wolfgang Klaue:
The criteria of autonomy, once defined by Ernest Lindgren, are the same today. We should be more open and realistic in accepting existing structures, variant archival models. FIAF never changed anything in an archive or other institution by insisting on its principles of autonomy.
The Statutes and Rules, as established and defined in the 60s are in principle unchanged, and I think this situation cannot be sustained much longer. On the other hand, it will be extremely difficult to adapt the Statutes and Rules to the real world, to the real conditions of the Federation. Many of the articles are as important today as at the hour they were drafted; others have been on the books for thirty years without revealing any utility, any practical value whatsoever. You remember the long and detailed article and rules on an arbitration jury. It was once a necessary item; it was implemented to settle the protracted conflict with Langlois in a fair and objective way. But it was, in effect, a historical singularity. Since the days of Langlois, there has never been an arbitration jury operative within FIAF. There have been many conflicts settled in other, less formal ways. This is only one example of the disengagement of the FIAF Statutes and Rules from our present historical development.
So I am among those who advocate a deep reconsideration of the Statutes and Rules. The time has come to define more clearly the obligations of the Executive Committee and the General Assembly. In the past, a large part of FIAF business was taken up in the General Assembly, but this was only functional when FIAF was a relatively small body. In the current situation of a much expanded and apparently constantly growing membership, we need to reconsider this 'Greek democracy' model of governance. The time of General Assembly at the Congresses is more effectively devoted to discussions of professional matters, cultural concepts and views, policy and the future of the Federation.
But I have yet another topic I'd like to broach with you. The history of FIAF is not only the story of our successes. There have been errors in the development of the Federation, and failures. FIAF has never been very successful in organizing the study of film history on an international scale. You'll remember that in the early years, there was an attempt to establish an International Film Historical Bureau. FIAF at one point introduced it, but there were no practical results, no ongoing organizational or scholarly activity. Years later, Todor Andreykov of Bulgaria introduced a world cinema history project. It too was a failure.

Jerzy Toeplitz:
Well, the main reason, as I recall, was that in spite of the Congresses, where we insisted that an historical committee should be established in each member archive, this was never executed. There should be a new FIAF initiative in the area of cinema history. Today, it is apparent that historians of the cinema cannot exist, cannot do their work, without the help of FIAF. Perhaps the formula of the Executive Committee was not a good one. Perhaps we should ask the film archives to organize societies of film historians. I share your opinion that the general approach of Mr Andreykov, which was very much supported at the time by Mr Aristarco, was untenable. First of all, the people who were in the national Committees were sometimes chosen for absolutely unknown or irrelevant reasons, often having nothing to do with their film culture or even technical expertise. But if you have a society of film historians (as you have societies of psychologists, sociologists, art historians), perhaps you have a way of eliminating 'impostors' in an objective way, and progress can be made by those genuinely interested in advancing film-historical studies.

Wolfgang Klaue:
Were these schemes too early? Were they perhaps not adequately grounded in the practice of film historical methodology? I don't know. My general impression from this early period is that many interesting proposals were made, lots of ideas were put forward, but few if any can be said to have succeeded. I wonder if we are doing any better today?

Jerzy Toeplitz:
Well, there is a much better, much more evolved practical organization, an administrative body which makes it easier to realize some things.

Wolfgang Klaue:
I'd like to return again to an earlier question. You mentioned the film museum of Lodz. The number of film museums is growing rapidly all over the world. Should FIAF open its doors to the film museum? These are related institutions, they cannot exist without the close collaboration of film archives, and they share the aims of FIAF in their support of film culture and in preserving a very important part of the history of the cinema.

Jerzy Toeplitz:
It would be easier if these film museums created their own organization, which could then be formally associated with FIAF by some form of cooperative agreement.

Wolfgang Klaue:
At this point, I want to raise an important if somewhat difficult set of questions. I bring it up because we are both to some degree involved. In Germany today, it's nearly a daily exercise of the press to make some spectacular discovery from the past, partly true, partly false, and nearly always ignorant of historical facts. What I want to ask is this: to what degree was FIAF complicit with the communist regimes? I am waiting for someone from the boulevard press to discover that FIAF was completely in the hands of 'communists' for decades. There was a president from Poland for twenty-five years, followed by another from Yugoslavia. Vladimir Pogacic was succeeded by an East German. It seems unbelievable that for decades the leadership of FIAF came from the socialist countries of Eastern Europe. How could this happen? And a related question: what was the special interest of those communist regimes of the former socialist countries, in FIAF?

Jerzy Toeplitz:
The answer to the first question is that it is absolute nonsense about a communist plot. We were elected by a majority of westerners. My case is probably even stronger; when I was elected, there were no archives in East Germany or the Soviet Union? They came later. There was only Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia was also an outsider, not much accepted in Stalinist times by the Communist International. So the question is nonsense. It was only a question of the prestige we had with our colleagues in the West.
This in part answers the second question. In the beginning, we in the eastern countries had film professionals very much involved in the work of the film archives; they were not administrative managers. Banaskiewicz is an excellent example; Swoboda later in Czechoslovakia is another. In Hungary, the situation was never very clear; there were many changes, but Pogacic was a well-known film director. And so on. You have the best example with Pr. Privato from Moscow. Nobody believed that he was totally devoted to 'the cause', but in the course of time it became abundantly clear that his interest in international cooperation had to do with his devotion to the original principles of the film archive movement; in this respect, he was not 'the delegate of the communist party.'
Let us end with this legend. I know that in my time, there was an attempt to dislodge me from my position as president of FIAF. James Card arranged a meeting in Wiesbaden, and who else was there? I think that Lindgren was invited, and took a very strong position in my defence. Nothing happened because in FIAF, change is only possible if you win the majority of the General Assembly. The majority as a political principle was never used. We always said that we were not politically minded, that we were professionals, and as such, not interested in politics.

Wolfgang Klaue:
I am very happy you made such a statement. I really think there is no place for a scandalous expose of FIAF in the press, regardless of the long tenure of leadership from the Eastern Bloc countries. I am of the same opinion; I believe we were elected because of our professionalism and because we were accepted by the majority. In my case, I can say there was some political interest in FIAF on the part of East Germany, but it was probably in a special situation. FIAF, like many other organizations, was a way to become internationally recognized.

Jerzy Toeplitz:
The participation of the German Democratic Republic was a sign of this recognition.

Wolfgang Klaue:
Yes, certainly. But the interest in FIAF lasted as long as the GDR was not politically recognized. As soon as it was recognized, in the beginning of the 1970s, the authorities lost their interest in FIAF. It became much more complicated to get the necessary funding to continue working with FIAF than before the GDR was recognized.

Jerzy Toeplitz:
This was probably never the motivation in Poland, because we already belonged to many international organizations.

Wolfgang Klaue:
Film archives in the former socialist countries were recognized institutions, supported by the government. They were economically in a much better situation than they are today.

Wolfgang Klaue:
Should FIAF remain a federation of film archives, or should it consider development as an association of institutions collecting and preserving all forms of moving image and not only film?

Jerzy Toeplitz:
It should remain as it was. Here I would come back to my opening statements about the final goals of the Federation concerning its origins in film culture and the advancement of cinema as an art. If the Federation consists of institutions collecting all forms of the moving image, the focus becomes very technical, and immaterial. This will have a harmful effect on the Federation, it will intensify the negative tendencies I have cited earlier. Collecting and preserving as a final and only end is not enough.

Wolfgang Klaue:
To open the Federation to the wider concept which integrates archives collecting and preserving all forms of moving image will lead to a very deep, complete change in FIAF. But I think it's in the hands of the membership to decide that. Many archives have already broadened their collection policies and practices. This issue remains one of the basic questions that is before FIAF today.

Jerzy Toeplitz:
Yes, but I think you can say that not all museums and art galleries are willing to accept smaller private exhibitions of art. In Warsaw now there are 40 or 50 such enterprises which collect and show pictures and I don't think they should have the same status as a museum of art.

Wolfgang Klaue:
Then FIAF might become an umbrella organization which integrates a diversity of institutions collecting and preserving moving images, films and videos and other kinds of recording. It would be a very different organization.

Wolfgang Klaue:
The relationship between the medium which is collected and preserved and the cultural aim of the Federation is lost. This is something which has already partly happened in FIAF, but which will increase as the membership, the scope of the Federation is broadened.
I don't believe that such a momentous decision should be taken in one meeting. I understand Bologna as the beginning of a general debate within FIAF about its future, not as the place where a final decision should be made. There are so many problems that must be solved, archival problems about legal deposit, education of film archivists, and the proposal for an international catalog of the holdings of all the archives, an idea first proposed in 1946.

Jerzy Toeplitz:
An idea blocked by Ledoux, who said the holdings should be kept secret.

Wolfgang Klaue:
Some of these practices may no longer be justified by conditions, objective or subjective. From so many directions, we have arrived again to one of those fundamental turning points that will define the Federation. It is my understanding that the new Executive Committee is very much in favour of having an open debate on the future of FIAF.

Jerzy Toeplitz:
Will it be on the agenda?

Wolfgang Klaue:
Oh yes! There will be a day devoted to this discussion in Bologna. But the two of us have spent half a day talking about this; I don't see 150 delegates at the Congress coming to conclusions on a much larger slate of questions in a single day. Bologna is only a beginning. Perhaps this dialogue can be our contribution to the general debate. If the Federation is going to redefine itself, it's going to take the involvement, the engagement of as many members as possible.

Jerzy Toeplitz:
Then you must mobilize!

Wolfgang Klaue:
That is exactly what is called for. Unfortunately, not all FIAF members understand themselves as FIAF representatives, as active agents in the future of their organization. Jerzy, thank you for your hospitality, for the time you've spent with me, for this dialogue on the past, present and future of FIAF.

Dialogue entre Jerzy Toeplitz et Wolfgang Klaue

A l'heure où la discussion sur l'avenir de la FIAF se prépare, l'entretien entre deux de ses anciens présidents apporte un regard enrichi du souvenir de nombreuses années d'expérience sur le présent et l'avenir de notre fédération.
S'il est difficile de transcrire une conversation de cette nature a partir d'une bande magnétique, il l'est encore davantage de résumer ce qui a été dit et de ce qui apparaît en filigrane de cet entretien qui a eu lieu à Varsovie le 26 janvier 1994.
Pour le Dr. Toeplitz, l'activité au sein du mouvement des cinémathèques se confond avec celle qu'il a développée en tant que théoricien et historien du cinéma depuis le "Start" des années 20 en Pologne.
Les 25 dernières années ont été marquées, selon Jerzy Toeplitz, par deux phénomènes majeurs; l'un d'ordre général: la "Guerre froide", l'autre interne: les divergences entre les positions de Lindgren et celles de Langlois.
Au début, la FIAF était le lieu des nouvelles expériences par excellence. On privilégiait le cinéma d'art au détriment des films considérés comme documents. Actuellement on assiste à un véritable changement. L'opposition entre les deux approches du cinéma tend à disparaître. Le profil des directeurs change également.
Tous les aspects de la discussion à venir sont abordés dans cet entretien: les conditions d'admission à la FIAF (donc les statuts et les règles), la nature du travail à accomplir à l'avenir, la politique d'accès aux collections, la question des droits et bien d'autres questions qui seront au centre du débat.

Pasado, presente y futuro de la FIAF.
Diálogo entre Jerzy Toeplitz y Wolgang Klaue

En horas en que la discusión sobre el futuro de la FIAF se prepara (para Boloña), el diálogo entre dos de sus ex-presidentes aporta un punto de vista enriquecido por el recuerdo de numerosos años de experiencia sobre el presente y el futuro de nuestra federación.
Si resulta difícil transcribir una conversación de esta naturaleza desde una banda magnética, lo es aún más el resumir aquí lo que se ha dicho y lo que transluce como filigrana de este diálogo que tuvo lugar en Varsovia el 26 de enero de 1994.
Las actividades del Dr. Toeplitz dentro del movimiento de las cinematecas se confunde con las que desempeñó como teórico e historiador del cine a partir del "Start" de los años 20 en Polonia. Los últimos 25 años han sido marcados, según Jerzy Toeplitz, por dos fenómenos: uno general, la guerra fría; el otro interno, la oposición entre los puntos de vista de Lindgren y de Langlois.
En sus comienzos, la FIAF fué el lugar predilecto para llevar a cabo nuevas experiencias. Se daba preferencia a las películas artísticas en desmedro de de aquellas que se consideraban como simples documentos. Actualmente se asiste a un cambio profundo. El antagonismo entre estas dos concepciones del cine tiende a desaparecer. También cambia el perfil de los nuevos directores.
Numerosos aspectos de la discusión prevista en Boloña fueron tratados en esta conversación: las condiciones de admisión en la FIAF (por consiguiente sus estatutos y su reglamento), la naturaleza de las tareas a llevar a cabo en el futuro, la política de acceso a las colecciones, el espinoso problema de los derechos, y muchos otros temas que estarán en el centro del debate.