Elena Lara: With this conversation, we had planned to make it like a "clinic" of projects, because in the end we think that El Postalero is not an isolated case of a vulnerable proposal - as we could see in the workshop you gave in Granada [1]—. Self-management and all this has very nice things about creating links and doing things your way, but in the end you are always dependent on the institution.

Ana CSC: You are “vulnerable” [2], right? About the vulnerability in the projects, since you mentioned self-management, the saddest thing... I was going to say "sad", but it's not sad but "worrying", I think it's a matter of it being like a symptom that repeats itself at all project scales. In a little while, an interview will be released that they have done for us from Metal Magazine [3], and we just mentioned it in that interview: Galaxxia when it started in 2019 this "yin yang" thing that usually appears in cultural projects, which consists of the fact that, on the one hand, your symbolic capital or cultural capital is quite high but... the capital project material is quite low. In our case in 2019/2020 it had to do with two fairly clear things: on the one hand, we were starting out in this area of ​​cultural management and we tended to self-precarize in favor of the spectacularity of the project; more then problems within the team than the start, that this is always in any design, any type of project. We always have to take into account these negative aspects that can reach our proposal and ignite fires that at some point end up burning it down. Apart from that, then came the COVID. On the one hand, inexperience came together, which is also good because as experience is gained, the ability to dream is minimized - and therefore, the ability to be creative - but of course, this was combined with the COVID.

At that time we had help from the Ministry of Culture and the City Council and... the truth is that the Ministry was quite quick, and immediately gave us answers, but from the City Council we received a kind of total administrative silence and we didn't know very well where to turn. Times multiplied. We ended up finding a bit of the online way, because the project itself had actually been born with a lot of support from the digital layer. But, recapitulating, the conclusion was this: we ended up quite satisfied with respect to the programming of all the events that arose in relation to the first stage of Galaxxia, but we ended up very burned because at the level of the motor team and the management of the project it was absolutely disastrous . In the previously mentioned interview we talked about the fact that, for a whole year's work with practically half a day of dedication, we charge a total of €2,500 per year per head... something absurd. I mean, an absurd thing also put quite a bit in comparison or in parallel with what is the discourse or the theoretical bases from which we started in a project like Galaxxia. 

We have always made the exercise of making visible what happened, and we try to learn from the mistakes... or at first, at least, go towards them and make them visible. We wanted to understand them and, from there, we have changed our way of doing things in terms of the team's implications, the times we have, expectations, real capabilities in all aspects. In general, count on these possible vicissitudes of life (which are going to knock you down). We believe that we have done this exercise in a quite conscious way and that it has helped the project in general and the team that manages it first, maintaining the coherence between its discourse and its practice and also the relationship with the other young cultural workers with those who work

What's up? We're doing this exercise but we were telling you that, because there's one thing that seems quite painful to us, which is that this is a question that is repeated even in partner projects with people at the wheel who are supposed to have much more experience than us and, therefore, a knowledge of the sector—and to make a p*** excel, basically, better than ours—. However, it is not like that: it seems that we continue with this thing implemented, internalized success, which is much of capitalism. We imbue our person with all the layers of that capitalist logic... successful and eager for spectacularity to the detriment of the real health of the project, of the people who support it and others. 

This vulnerability I think is something that is repeated, and that is reiterative also because it is not pointed out or not understood as an error or as a negative factor the question that the design of the proposal, a holistic development of the project is not being done in terms of the aspects of "project ecology". It seems that self-management does not move money but there is also a materiality, and it is there in kind or in euros. This vulnerability is shared but, when it is shared, the suffering is diluted a little and becomes more of a first step towards the politicization of our working conditions—and sometimes even those that we can decide—. I think this politicization can lead to transformations and other work methodologies that have more to do with labor rights than with this spectacularity.

EL: Despite the fact that we had Galaxxia as a reference from the beginning—in the sense of being transparent with how we manage the project—we reproduced things due to inexperience, which have made the project reach a point where it has to end. The main reason is the economic part: for two and a half years, as a self-managed project, money has moved but we have not seen a single euro. What's more, we have invested constantly when it has failed, and we knew (and know) how bad it was to pay us too. It sounds ridiculous, but we are going to pay the people who are going to write €50, and we, after two years of running with this, had agreed that "if there was money left over" and after paying the people, we would pay ourselves ... but hey, it's a little hard to share all this.

Louise K. Houtman: This is in good measure because we feel the need to pay other people because we believe that in the end we deserve it as artists. Precisely as managers who are working hard, we know how to recognize the time that writers and artists invest. We feel the urgency of doing justice and remunerating that work, just as we would want it with us.

EL: We also talked in those workshops about the fact that trying not to make the people we were looking for precarious, made us run the risk of making ourselves precarious. Perhaps we do not realize that, instead of doing a project of such a large magnitude, we should adjust the magnitude to pay us for the work we have been doing these years.

ACSC: And this for example... did you communicate it as part of that transparency? When you approach the people you want to collaborate with, tell them something like: "the project is created with these economic bases". For example, in the case of those who write: "we can pay €50, but keep in mind that the management team does not charge anything" or that "this money comes from "x" pocket". 

EL: When we sent the mails it is true that we said that we were going to pay €50, and that we knew that the texts were paid better, but that they would take into account that it is a self-managed project and that this is the money we have available. But until now we have not made it public that we have not taken anything.

LKH: I think that in the end, the lack of transparency in this aspect has indirectly led to problems, but because I think there are people who give it to me that we are making a lot of money from this. Not only is there much time in its management, but also in its gestation... perhaps a certain struggle could be avoided, since there is no competition in all this.

ACSC: Yes, that is like a fairly clear example of cultural capital versus the real material capital of things, which is this deception that happens in this "wonderful" sector of which we are part. It seems that if you are successful in terms of that public, community - and also if you care about communication, there is a cool visual design around - it contributes to generating this narrative. I'm not saying it as something culpable... I think there's an exercise in common sense, precisely to understand yourself as part of this sector: also read us to the rest, to fellow projects, from the doubt. 

All this is generated by not being 100% transparent in that sense. From my point of view, I think it would minimize a lot of problems. I would suggest to you in general - because it could be for any other project - that if there is money "x" and you don't know where it comes from (even if it is €50), to do the percentage calculation exercise "this is the money that is ". What's happening now with the Cultura con Acento podcast: it's about €360 in total per episode What's up? that we have decided to invite people - two collectives in each episode - and ask them to create a soundscape and then share a little chat with us. Perhaps the recording then only lasts 20 minutes, but there is a previous work.

Paying directly without explanation is not the same as telling someone "we would pay much more". According more or less to the budget, for jobs that are so punctual and that are maybe 2 or 3 hours of prior preparation, we pay €150... we pay and ask to be paid €150 at least but, in the case of the podcast, we cannot do it because the budget is what there is. Then we tell them: "The total budget per episode is this, each of the invited projects will be charged €110 and what's left, we earn a little more (I think it's €20 more)". This remaining money is earned by the person who scripts it and speaks in that case. It's precarious, but it also gives you the possibility to decide, do I interfere in this project or not?, and if I do, how much energy do I put into it? It's something that we also try to point out to people and emphasize: "Hey, it's expected of you to do this work and that the dedication is enough to generate a clear and understandable soundscape and that's it, but please don't break down head and don't spend a whole week thinking about this, because the money there is not balanced with this type of dedication". 

I think we have to point out that mistake a little, there are many ways to do things in the future... in the case of El Postalero, although you have made the decision to stop it, I hope that for a future it becomes a lesson that can be learned in account Regardless of the episode of vulnerability, I believe that in almost all episodes there is some project that communicates that desire and even the need to stop, or even have to close—for internal issues or tortuous institutional relationships—. The general thing is that projects fall apart, we are not weird or poor unfortunates... that's life. We live in a system in crisis in a traditionally precarious sector and out of ten projects that start, six fail. These four remaining projects navigate as best they can. If you said "a project clinic", it is difficult to communicate the "symptoms".

Something that catches my attention, and that makes us very happy, is that Galaxxia is the inspiration for a project like El Postalero.

EL: That's what I was telling you before, that we've tried to be transparent. This project belonged to another girl before, she laid the foundations and in those foundations it was stipulated that €20 would be charged per piece sold in El Postalero. In that way, you adjusted the production: you did what you wanted, but you knew that the generic price was €20, and that this was going to be the same way for the rest of the people who participated... this was done horizontally and that you would not reach at the opening and you will see each artist putting different prices. Likewise, we announced in advance that we would keep 25% of this €20, which was intended for the management of the project (return shipments of works that had not been sold, packaging, posters and posters, ISBN of the publication and texts,...).

Based on this, we oriented ourselves to pay people for the texts in the catalog, telling them that we did not expect anything concrete from them: we gave them the general orientation of what had been written the previous year for that same amount of money (approximately a ) but nothing else. We don't feel any need to hide that this project is not ours or how we have readapted what we took—everyone digests it in a different way—. For our part, we found these bases and we did it our way and we expect the same from whoever in the future wants to continue with such a project. We understand that with the same idea people can work in very different ways.

I wanted to talk to you about this whole notion of success: when a project is a success and when it is a failure. In smaller circles, I believe that success is usually measured by staying true to your principles or the ability to materialize things that you had in mind from the first moment (and failure by not doing these things). The problem is that we apply these terms of success and failure and, perhaps, it is a success to leave it in time because you are seeing that it is not sustainable.

ACSC: Yes, totally. It is true that I believe that we always measure success because we find it more than we would like. We measure success based on many things, but one of them that can be naive - but it is not that much, precisely because it is not the norm - is "enjoying the process" and enjoying the implementation of things. We meet many colleagues, cultural workers at different levels (who work in institutions or who have their own projects, who do collaborations), many, many people who always tell us the same thing: "I'm hoping it's over". What do I know, from a workshop to a meeting, whatever. The reaction is "y****, how sad, isn't it?" How sad and, on the other hand, how normal.

Since you generate your own movements and you have the kindness to create something good (at least in terms of content), why not enjoy the process. Enjoying the process does not mean being "chiripitiflauticos" 24/7: you can't be happy all the time with your proposals. I think that in any project process it is healthy and also enjoyable when those errors and those logical anxieties also happen, because in the end what we are doing is working and, as what we are doing is working, well many things happen to us***** . But yes, I believe that one of the great successes we pursue in Galaxxia is the small success of enjoying what we do and, obviously, it goes hand in hand with being consistent with our own principles and being honest with our ways of acting. If there is an error, take it into account as part of the process. 

Closing certain projects and processes is also a success because it gives space and time for ideas, emotions and dreams regarding what is to come. Many times you cling to something that tortures you and we become what would be a toxic boyfriend. We have toxic relationships with our projects because we make the mistake of personalizing work, and understanding that work is our love and... no, work is work. Many affections can happen around, right? but I think that this differentiation needs to be resolved well, and it is a struggle that we also bring a lot from Galaxxia: how to "harvest" class consciousness in a sector in which it seems that we feed on air. I think that any definition of "success" is actually always good and whenever it escapes from the definition given to us by capitalist logic. 

LKH: I like a lot what you say about love and projects. The projects begin with a lot of enthusiasm and hunger to explore ideas to the bottom and, as you progress, you realize that it did not develop as you had originally thought. The tiring thing in project management seems to me to be the events that, no matter how small, make you fall not once or twice, but repeatedly. The first time nothing happens, but when you have already fallen into the same thing 100 times... it is very easy to give up on the project.

EL: We have enjoyed the process quite a bit too. I, at least, have left each meeting with a very good feeling that every problem was followed by solutions. Although we have been able to make progress, it is good not to fall in love with a project... however, the failures and ailments we have shared have made us learn and draw productive conclusions.

ACSC: Yes, feeling accompanied is a point: because it is not the same as always falling and tripping over the same stone if you feel that you are alone - regardless of whether you are in a group or not - that at least these conversations can be on the table with your colleagues and with the community that is generated. The capitalist logics are tremendously culpable and individualizing those failures and those mistakes and discomforts and... we were working with teenagers here in Vallecas, with another project [4] . They told us at one point: "No, teacher!" -they always called us professor, although we asked them to please not call us that- "Everybody here with their shit" and then when they started to share it they realized that the "shit" had a very similar smell and that the flies that swarmed them were generally the same. So... I think that this is also important: it is valuable to take into account in any process that involves a group of people, in the construction of any community, the issue of being transparent. It's not something naive and it doesn't have a purely business sense either - in a sense of transparency in relation to money and its management - but in the end it has a lot to do with building relationships. Since we count on the fact that the waters through which we move are anything but solid, at least we have a "tablet" there to hold on to.

EL: We are very grateful for the time you have spent talking to us about these topics. We don't want to steal more time, but we also don't want you to feel like something is left in the ink tank. 

ACSC: For our part, since you are asking us about the concept of vulnerability, I would like to emphasize having vulnerability at the center of the processes: doing an exercise aware that we start from vulnerable situations from several fronts, since it is important in order to minimize possible violence and also future ailments—that will come, because they always come—. 

On the other hand, we always say that Galaxxia is like a master's degree in cultural management for ourselves; but we also intend to be transparent with our own methodology in all possible aspects to achieve at least that desired sense that others can absorb, and can internalize it as their own practices. That this has happened with El Postalero is something that makes us very happy, so thank you for letting us know.

I also think that it is almost like an exercise of divine justice to give thanks and recognize each other—not just us, in Galaxxia—that we inspire each other and that it also helps that Galaxxia's way of working is a teaching side, but above all a balm. In this case, to close the project or at least paralyze it, although that is never known: then life takes many turns and you don't know when El Postalero is going to make a comeback, or it is going to be reproduced or multiplied in other things of the whatever you do - be sure that it will happen - be ecological too with the work done and value it even at CV level. Many times these things that start from self-management seem to have less value, but ****, when you get to the end... well, as Louise said before, she used to work for almost 40 hours for two years, well... it's a job - no remunerado, but it is a career that has been taken forward.

EL: How nice... Many thanks also to you for doing all this work because if not, we would not have had that reference, which is also very sad to search for how to manage a project in the best way possible without having references.

ACSC: The "nonsense" is that in the end Galaxxia is also a young project (we've been working since 2019) and I've already told you about the material conditions we've had, which have led to progress and setbacks along the way. We consider that Galaxxia is still in an infant phase, so we are very excited that you saw us from that place.

EL: Although El Postalero ends, the tastes and appetites that brought us here (the ones we have in common and the ones that make us different) will continue there and, in some way, these concerns will act as an engine that will push us to make similar projects. When a proposal ends, it causes a lot of anger and is also the engine for others to start.

ACSC: Anger is also a good engine, eh! Well, the same thing that happens with success and failure, happens with the emotionality that involves projects in which you turn to that level. It seems that feeling angry is something intrinsically bad, and we believe the opposite. In the last episode that was published in Cultura con Acento [5], we talk about fury as a driving force to move forward and make visible all those things that enrage us, but in the end other narratives are generated against the status quo...which is really the contextual framework that ends us j******* and that has ended up making us feel the way we feel, so bump into El Postalero 2.0... anger, and we'll see.