| Discuss this Article! |
Hear what other readers have to say, or post your own thoughts. |
| Also in this Issue |
| RSS Subscriptions |
 
|
Fashioning a Cultural Policy versus a Cultural Fashion Policy
by Paul Nagle in Winter 2005: The Advocacy Issue
Why have the worthy National Endowment goals of access and democratization, pluralism, excellence and a leveraging imprimatur all become merely processes of validating “taste?†It seems that no matter who controls the social discourse, culture is always in the process of being used as a weapon of domination. As the social pendulum swings, the Weimar whores and drag queens, with their pale sunken cheeks and their eyes smeared with mascara, metamorphose into the blond Aryan warriors. Bellbottomed, long-haired hippies are vanquished by legions of young, fresh-faced, clean cut evangelists. Culture is not neutral. Policies are needed to ensure freedom of expression for everyone.
It seems that no matter how much we are learning about how culture actually underpins so much of what is good and important to society, both spiritually and economically, we still cannot learn to respect its true values and harness its amazing potential. It is as if the children in the school yard brawl are fighting each other with plates of fine china. Culture is not free. Policies are needed in order to keep us from squandering these riches.
It seems that no matter how important we all claim culture to be, we have lost the will to make sure that the arts are taught to our children. Culture is like the environment – its sustainability derives from its diversity, and if we are not careful, we will exhaust it for lack of skill in both practice and appreciation of it. Policies are needed, if we are to hand this precious legacy down to successive generations.
And in this new information economy, it seems that all on its own, culture can drive development, so well in fact, that without public policy intervention, that development ultimately renders culture too unprofitable to exist within the soaring real estate and business markets it generates. All this, even though we still can’t agree on the taste issue.
I propose that it is almost time for another Independent Commission to discuss a national arts policy. But let’s not talk about the National Endowment for the Arts and whether funding only Shakespeare absolutely everywhere is a safe enough bet. As long as the discussion is about taste, there will be no consensus. Let the Endowment limp along until we have finished refiguring the arts. This time, our Independent Commission on Arts as a National Resource in the New Economy must have plenty of artists, arts advocates and arts administrators, some political scientists, some historians, several economists, a small legion of academics, some urban and regional planners, a number of municipal, state and federal administrators, representatives from foundations and ngo’s, quite a few educators, a healthy complement of business leaders from the information technology, entertainment knowledge and manufacturing industries, some labor leaders, some real estate developers, some philanthropists and perhaps a venture capitalist or two. I might have left someone out, but this would be a good start.
This large and diverse group would be separated into eclectic parallel cohorts led by teams of representatives culled from a diverse selection of the most respected states arts agencies. Their sessions would be facilitated by moderators skilled in the Creative Cities techniques of community dialogue. And their charge would be this: Articulate all the many ways, both intrinsic and instrumental, that arts and culture can benefit our nation. Create a list of the public policy areas that are implicated in realizing every one of these various potentials. Map the relationships between deliverables, populations, and the corresponding government agencies that can coordinate disbursement programs with the greatest knowledge, efficiency and accountability. Create a system to measure outcomes, both quantitative and qualitative. Then craft an integrated, multi-sector, intergovernmental strategy for maximizing all of these benefits with limited allocations. Once we know what we are trying to do, we can decide how much money it will take. Spending all the money in the world will never satisfy everyone’s tastes.
| Reader Comments |
|
Posted by at 11:40 AM on May 28, 2008 The larger a rational system becomes, the more unreasonable its behavior. We should take care that arts and culture not ultimately become the victim of social planning. Link: http://www.markgresham.com
|
| Post a Comment |