|
On the face of it, sustainable culture may appear to be a public
sector debate over a particular cultural establishment and how best
to justify the funding required to maintain it. However, I wish
to start from the position that for individuals who create and sustain
cultures, not the bureaucratic infrastructures that we manufacture
to support our established cultural heritage. A prime example is
the Millennium Dome. Here we see a project without roots or individuality,
dominated by committees with a consensual view of the world, and
lacking any creative individuality or risk.
It is time for a serious readjustment of the way we perceive and
support cultural activity, otherwise there is a danger that without
critical analysis or reflection, we will continue to ignore the
true nature of culture: that is people, risk, change and creativity.
Conceptual confusion; arts industry, heritage industry, creative
industries or cultural industries?
I will start with a conventional definition of culture, succinctly
encapsulated by Raymond Williams:
"a description of a particular way of life which expresses
certain meanings and values not only in art and learning, but also
in institutions and ordinary behaviour."
He interprets culture in the widest sense, an inclusive attitude
consisting of structured and patterned ways of learning. He explains
the artistic component of culture as:
"Individuals in groups characteristically respond to and make
meaningful the circumstances in which they are placed by virtue
of their positions in society and in history."
This definition framework leads us to a wider understanding of
our society. Williams would no doubt recognise Blackpool Pleasure
Beach, with over 7 million visitors in 1998, as a cultural centre.
But it would no doubt be unwelcome in the approved cultural family
of the Arts Council of England or Resource, the national agency
for museums, libraries and archives, and would even be hard pressed
to fall within the concept of cultural tourism. Similarly, the enormously
successful TV soaps Eastenders and Coronation Street or Manchester
United and the cultural phenomenon of soccer fans are both recognised
by social scientists as part of the cultural life of the UK but
are seen as private sector activities and hence deemed to be inartistic.
All are successful as businesses and attract large audiences without
the benefit of subsidies.
Current debate also makes little of the role of values and religion
in society, an integral part of culture. Such narrow definitions
do not help us when it is clear the arts, religion and culture have
been inextricably linked over centuries, with the renaissance being
the most obvious example.
Over the course of the last decade, the debate over the expenditure
of funds in support of cultural activity and development has suffered
from departmentalisation and a lack of coherence. Definitions of
what constitutes cultural heritage are confused and are sometimes
exclusive of more modern forms of culture.
Instead of the usual focus of attention on how the arts and heritage
can meet government policy in the areas of urban regeneration and
community development, we need to consider the importance of culture
as a defining mechanism for society and as a richness-in-diversity
concept. Public agencies, such as the Arts Council, are charged
with educating society in, and promoting the accessibility of, the
excellence of the arts. Whilst this may be admirable, is it right
that a national agency should be given the task of defining our
corporate sense of aesthetic? The position I wish to adopt is one
that avoids a very Victorian discussion of which corporate aesthetic
is most appropriate for our respective society but leaves it to
the individual to interpret in the way they see best, supporting
their inherent creativity.
Such an alternative perspective allows us to consider a more sustainable
future for the arts and heritage as creative businesses, with products,
services and markets. Judgement of excellence is simple, and funding
becomes based on a business model. The nature of public sector organisational
roles can be re-evaluated in developing this industrial sector just
like any other industrial activity. Large businesses and the education
sector take over the role of research and development. Government
should ensure that risk and innovation is nurtured. No special pleading
should be required though, and a wider range of funding agencies
can become involved in supporting and developing the businesses.
We can then place our understanding of the creative industries
in a wider definition of culture to encourage cohesion, access,
participation and ownership. Culture as an all-embracing framework
gives us a mechanism for making sense of our activities at a community,
regional and national level. A good example of this is the development
of a cultural strategy in Rotherham, an old steel community in South
Yorkshire, defined as:
Culture has a material dimension:
· The performing arts - music, drama, dance
· The visual arts - craft, sculpture, fashion
· Media, film, television, video, language
· Museums, artefacts, archives, design
· Libraries, literature, publishing, writing
· Combined Arts and festivals
· The Built heritage - architecture, landscape, urban parks
And a value dimension;
· Relationships and shared identity
· Shared memories and experiences
· Standards
· What we consider valuable to pass on to future generations.
It is obvious that a cultural definitional framework encompassing
far more than the traditional arts and heritages facilitates engagement
and interaction with many of the components such as the built environment,
beliefs, play and shared memories. A museum, as a focal point for
reflection and interpretation of past cultural activities, becomes
a sustainable project where public funding is clearly justified.
However, this should not prevent us from seeing that the combination
of the arts and heritage as an integral component of the culture
of a community, region or nation, with the notion of culture as
an industry, provides the most effective and powerful future strategy
for all those engaged in such activities.
Culture as a creative industry
Culture as an industry challenges the traditional large institutions,
which absorb the largest share of public funds. Whilst they have
an important role to play, such funding issues can be resolved by
establishing these institutions as businesses, with public sector
money targeted at what is needed to "grow" the business.
This approach, becoming more popular with the introduction of trusts
and PPPs, can encourage the private sector, such as Blackpool Leisure
Beach, to become involved in public sector activity. In Sheffield
for example, the council was having difficulty meeting the required
expenditure on its museums, galleries and libraries, leading to
redundancies and reduced opening hours. The city placed the department
in trust, retaining ownership of the estate, collections and other
assets, but with an independent management contracted to run the
services for six years in return for a guaranteed grant income.
Acting commercially to a business plan, the trust allowed the private
sector flexibility to operate the institutions as a business with
the assurance of public sector support.
Institutions such as these can be seen as creative businesses engaging
with customers, developing markets, and providing services and products
which contribute to the development of local, national and regional
culture. This may require a re-examination of the role of local
authorities or Arts Councils towards acting as contract and risk
managers with a wider understanding of business development. However,
such developments will not only limit public expenditure but also
provide more flexibility to the managers. Many local authorities
see a long-term future for the cultural services and arts in contributing
to regeneration, quality of life, social cohesion and economic development.
What is now required is the freedom to develop alternative strategies
and the recognition of people's innate creativity, capturing and
building it into the creative businesses of the future.
If administrators and policy makers continue the static debate
on public subsidies dedicated to the arts, the condition of our
institutions will never improve. We now need to insure that activities
encompassed in a cultural framework are derived from the needs of
communities and what they are prepared to pay for. Only through
this approach can we once and for all address the issue of sustainability.
Instead of asking how a particular institution or exhibition can
be supported and seeking funding as required, it is possible to
start in the opposite direction; we are an integral part of the
culture in which we live and therefore it should be an everyday
part of our personal or professional or professional lives that
we are engaged in environmental, social or economic matters that
reflect the cultural life of our town or city. Attracting funding
therefore becomes less of an issue. This approach relies fundamentally
on insuring that the relationship between organisations and individuals
in communities is strong and that the organisations reflect the
needs, aspirations and creative potential of the people of the town
or region. The most effective way of delivering this organisational
and individual interaction is to consider cultural activity as creative
businesses, which in order to survive have to identify and deliver
products and services to markets and customers.
|
