Recently in the “Guardian” newspaper, architecture critic Jonathan Glancey attacked those “architectural prophets” who, from Thurrock to Brasilia, have demolished our dreams of new Jerusalems. However beautiful may be the myths, the arts, like architecture, are never the product of a single man’s fiery visions. This is why we speak of culture.

Look at good drama performances. They are the results of “the earthly alliance of imagination, generosity, practical skill, common sense”, and not least, of gifted artists, whose soulful inspirations appeal to everybody. It may be the same for our most beloved monuments, which can make sense by embellishing our lives, making us think and helping us discover who we are.

If one could catch from above the “making-of “ of a work of art such as the Port-Louis Theatre, one would find that it was not the first of its kind; that what stands now is the remains of the oldest standing “lyric stage” in the Southern hemisphere, that it hosted the symbolic changes of pre-independent Mauritius, including Mayor Léchelle’s swearing-in and the introduction of cinema. Port-Louis, at that time, staged another scene, politically, economically and culturally. But most important, its theatre, adapted to the cultural orientation of the time, gave something to the people that could enlighten them.

So how could this venerable House have a second life and become again a home to national aspirations? One has to look at the dominant colours of present Port-Louis. They are not the same as 30 years ago. One of the most beautiful and arguably original realizations in the field of local architecture is the flowering of Hindu temples. They don’t obey the rules of colonial taste, but, achieved by professionnals, they look more vivid and lively than more ambitious edifices. Their lines, colours and sculptures, through expert hands, deserve a place in the living theatre of Mauritius’s first city.

One could also be inspired by post-war Lebanon’s example, where organisations like Liliane Tyan’s “Help Lebanon”, have tried to give new colours to buildings, to share the sense of beauty but, more importantly enable people to enjoy again a country morally and physically ruined by divisions. The more sober tones of recent realisations like the Indira Gandhi Centre for Indian Culture could also be a valuable inspiration.

At what about a cultural agenda? What possibilities are presently given to the theatre, renovated at great cost but with mitigated success ten years ago, and mostly left unchanged since? From the original 600 seats, not even all the 350 remaining after the 1994 works can be filled. The Port-Louis Drama Festival is on for a few weeks, and gives a warm feel to the building. And then? We have a “theatre”, but, seemingly, no director for it. The theatre does not “live” by itself : no permanent company, only foreign artists or local nomads, renting it for a few nights like notorious hotels let rooms for their night birds. All this could mean that neither is a local culture fully recognized in the heart of Mauritius, nor is that heart beating at all. What we see for now is a kind of heavy monster, anachronistically wandering in an era of “salles vertes”.

How could we even hope for a true artistic season, for an identity? Even if one has to be realistic about the theatre’s limited resources, is there no place for new activities? The Louvres auditorium in France harbours widescreen projection of musical documentary films, just as the IGCIC does now. It would perhaps be difficult to renew with past lyrical traditions of the theatre by inviting costly performers. But projections of filmed operas could be a solution.

The most worrying question remains: is the theatre’s fate to stay in its moribund state, deserted by its audiences, to become an empty museum with no memories or just to crumble away by itself?