Cultural Policy Lecture

  • 2,847 views
Uploaded on

Lecture for Creative Industries: Theory and Policy QUT, Brisbane, 18 September 2008

Lecture for Creative Industries: Theory and Policy QUT, Brisbane, 18 September 2008

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,847
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7

Actions

Shares
Downloads
83
Comments
0
Likes
3

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. National Cultural and Creative Industries Policies KKP404 Creative Industries: Theory and Policy Semester Two, 2008 Associate Professor Terry Flew
  • 2. Purposes of this lecture
    • In this lecture you will:
      • Understand the differences between arts policy and cultural policy
      • Develop an awareness of how cultural policy has developed historically in different parts of the world
      • Be provided with an overview of cultural policy development in Australia
      • Engage with issues around cultural and creative industries policy
  • 3. Cultural Policy: Historical Perspectives
    • French Revolution 1789:
      • appropriation by the state of patrimonine culturel
      • Idea of cultural citizenship
    • What binds and integrates citizens, a ‘common culture’ and a nation-state’?
    • Decolonisation after WWII: issue for emergent nation-states of how to link formal political independence to cultural sovereignty – UNESCO cultural policy discourse
  • 4. Culture and the nation-state
    • ‘ The modern nation-state self-consciously uses language policy, formal education, collective rituals, and mass media to integrate citizens and ensure their loyalty’ (Michael Schudson, “Culture and the Integration of Modern Societies”, International Social Science Journal 46 (1), 1994, p. 64.
  • 5. Cultural Policy: theoretical perspectives
    • Cultural policy as “the institutional supports that channel both aesthetic creativity and collective ways of life – a bridge between the two registers” (Toby Miller and George Y ú dice, Cultural Policy , 2002, p. 1).
    • Links to Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality
      • modern state/citizen relations work through indirect persuasion and learning rather than by force
      • ‘ government of culture’ has been critical to this
    • Cultural policy and citizenship
      • Collective learning in how to become citizens
      • Policy as a means of ‘acting upon the social’ (Tony Bennett)
  • 6. Origins of Arts Policy
    • Social improvement through exposure to arts and culture
    • Public subsidy to support arts and cultural forms that the market will not support
    • National culture - arts and culture best represent ‘who we are’ as a nation
  • 7. Differences between arts policy and cultural policy
    • Arts policy has tended to assume a limited domain of application (producers and consumers of artistic works), whereas cultural policy is oriented towards the whole population
    • Cultural policy has always incorporated the audiovisual and other media sectors
    • Cultural policy has sought to shape market outcomes rather than to operate solely as a supplement to the market (‘market failure’)
    • Cultural policy has foregrounded questions of national sovereignty and cultural identity
    • Cultural policy has been linked to democratisation of the arts – access and participation agendas
  • 8. French Cultural Policy: case study
    • Andre Malraux, Minster for Culture in Gaullist Fifth Republic (1959)
    • Three pillars of cultural policy
      • Heritage: distribution of ‘eternal products of the imagination’
      • Creation: public funding to support creation of new works
      • Democratisation: role for cultural policy in redressing socio-economic inequalities by cultural means
    • Point of contestation
      • action culturelle : bringing culture to the people OR l’action socioculturelle : culture is constituted by the people?
      • who defines ‘the canon’ of ‘great works’?
  • 9. Domains of Cultural Policy
    • Domains of Cultural Policy
      • Arts and culture (libraries, museums, galleries, performing arts centres, cultural agencies, cultural industries)
      • Communications and media (broadcast, ICTs, publishing, IP, design)
      • Citizenship and identity (cultural development, multiculturalism, cultural tourism, language, indigenous rights, symbolic identity)
      • Spatial culture (urban planning, regional culture, cultural heritage, natural heritage, leisure and recreation).
  • 10. Instruments of Cultural Policy
    • Direct support for cultural institutions (e.g. funding, libraries, galleries, museums, performing arts centres, national broadcasters)
    • Regulation of the production and distribution of cultural material (e.g. education curricula, advertising and publicity, censorship, local content quotas)
    • Influencing the market place for cultural products (e.g. tax initiatives, publishing, educational initiatives, social security)
  • 11. Models of Cultural Policy (Nation) Political State political objectives Government ownership of cultural organisations Former USSR, Mao-era China, Cuba Engineer National and community National and community cultural development Direct grants from Ministry of Culture France, Scandinavian countries Architect Professional or peer-based ‘ Arm’s length’ principle Grants by quasi-independent bodies Britain, Australia Patron Commercial or patron tastes Market manipulation Tax concessions United States Facilitator Modes of Evaluation Dominant Strategies Principal Funding Mechanisms Model Country Role of State Cultural Agencies
  • 12. Models of cultural policy over time (Celia Lury- UK)
    • Late 1940s-early 1960s: public funding to support ‘national cultural heritage’ against consumerism and mass culture
    • Late 1960s-early 1970s: democratisation of access to (high) culture
    • Mid-late 1970s: push for participation and community arts
    • 1980s: cultural industries/cultural entrepreneurship
    • 1990s/2000s: creative industries/creative economy
  • 13. The Australian Case
    • Australian Broadcasting Commission Act 1932 (now Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
    • Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust 1954
    • Australian Council for the Arts 1968
    • Australia Council 1975 - present
    • Shift from ‘voluntary entrepreneurship’ to ‘statutory patronage’ in arts support in 1968-1975 period
  • 14. The Australia Council
    • Established in 1968
    • Peer review and decentralised patronage model
    • Tension around access and excellence: broadening and spreading
    • How does OzCo manage failure?
    • Do funding models breed cultural conservatism?
    • 2005 restructuring: merging of New Media and Community Arts boards into established areas
    • Current Boards: Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander arts; Community Partnerships; Dance; Inter-arts; Literature; Major Performing Arts; Music; Theatre; Visual Arts
  • 15. Major Arts Inquiries in Australia
    • Industries Assistance Commission (1976)- questioned inability of ‘flagship’ arts organisations to justify their role and funding basis
    • McLeay Report, Power, Patronage and the Muse (1986)- concern about OzCo ‘capture’ and need to broaden definitions of ‘culture’
    • Creative Nation: Commonwealth Cultural Policy (1994)- Keating Govt. cultural policy
    • Nugent Report, Securing the Future (1999)
    • Myer Report, Report of the Contemporary Visual Arts and Craft Inquiry (2002)
  • 16. Creative Nation (1994)
    • Culture as both about identity, self-expression and creativity, and having economic value
    • Turn OzCo from arts ‘supply’ to generating new demand
    • New initiatives in performing and visual arts, film & TV, and multimedia, worth $250m over 3 years
  • 17. Cultural policy as national identity: Creative Nation (1994)
    • To speak of Australian culture is to recognise our common heritage. It is to say that we share ideas, values, sentiments and traditions, and that we see in all the various manifestations of these what it means to be Australian. Culture, then, concerns identity – the identity of the nation, communities, and individuals. We seek to preserve our culture because it is fundamental to our understanding of who we are. It is the name we go by, the house in which we live. Culture is that which gives us a sense of ourselves. … With a cultural policy we recognise our responsibility to foster and preserve such an environment. We recognise that the ownership of a heritage and identity, and the means of self-expression and creativity, are essential human needs and essential to the needs of society. ( Creative Nation , 1994, p. 5)
  • 18. Cultural policy as economic policy: Creative Nation (1994)
    • This cultural policy is also an economic policy. Culture creates wealth. … Culture adds value, it makes an essential contribution to innovation, marketing and design. It is a badge of our industry. The level of our creativity substantially determines our ability to adapt to new economic imperatives. It is a valuable export in itself and an essential accompaniment to the export of other commodities. It attracts tourists and students. It is essential to our economic success. ( Creative Nation , 1994, p. 7)
  • 19. Cultural Policy under the Howard Government (1996 - )
    • Conservative governments in English-speaking countries tend to be opposed to cultural policy (see e.g. Miller and Y ú dice, ‘The United States, Cultural Policy, and the National endowment for the Arts’, in Cultural Policy , 2002, pp. 35-71)
    • Howard Government has never sought to integrate arts policy, media and communications policy and ICT policy in a systematic way
    • Need to unpack various sector-specific policy statements rather than look for a ‘master document’
    • Context of the ‘culture wars’ has always been significant e.g. de-funding of the ABC
  • 20. Securing the Future: Major Performing Arts Inquiry (Nugent Report 1999)
    • Growing financial deficits of major performing arts companies ($2m per year increase)
    • High level of subsidy especially outside of Sydney
    • Contribution of major performing arts companies
      • Artistic: performances, repertoire, Australian product, developing Australian artists
      • Accessibility: touring, attendees at performances
      • Economic: income, employment, ‘multiplier’ effects
    • Final report redefined companies as
      • Global
      • Australian Flagship
      • Niche
      • Regional Flagship
  • 21. Australians and the Arts , Saatchi & Saatchi Report (2000)
    • Many Australians feel exclude from ‘Big A’ arts, but engage with ‘little a’ arts
    • Australians split three ways in valuing the arts: highly, lowly, and in-between
    • The arts sector needs to better communicate its value to ‘average Australians’
  • 22. Four challenges of arts and cultural policy
    • Jennifer Craik, Re-visioning Art and Cultural Policy (ANU E-Press, 2007)
    • How much support should governments provide to the arts and culture?
    • Managing the policy bifurcation between ‘elite arts’ and ‘popular culture’
    • How to work out whether different policies actually work?
    • How linked should arts and cultural policies be to other policies?
  • 23. Shifting rationales for arts and cultural policy support
    • Boosterism
    • Instrumentalism
    • Cultural capital
    • Branding and recognition
    • Citizenship
    • Creative industries
    • Innovation
  • 24. Four models of the cultural economy
    • Cunningham, Banks and Potts, in H. Anheier and Y. Raj Isar (ed.), The Cultural Economy (Sage, 2008)
    • Welfare/subsidy model - arts as unique and opposed to economic value
    • Competitive model - cultural industries are (mostly) like other industries
    • Growth model - creative industries are an economic growth driver
    • Innovation model - drivers of a creative economy