Culture is
increasingly funded on the basis of its societal ‘effects’. The Dutch
government’s primary concern is no longer the quality of theatres, museums and
cinemas but whether they are ‘useful’: do they contribute to the economy for
example? The Dutch Scientific Council (WRR) studied the consequences and risks of
this new policy development. In its study “Revaluing
culture” (see this link) it addressed the following two fundamental questions: what is the
value of culture and how can the government effectively support culture?
Risks
The report presents
three types of arguments for justifying cultural subsidies: artistically
(culture awakens our appreciation of our world), socially (culture creates
social identity and ties) and economically (culture creates jobs). The report
concludes that in the Netherlands the artistic argument is no longer enough but
that additional justification can be found in social and economic arguments.
These arguments however contain a number of risks:
- Scientific evidence for societal effects of culture is still fragmentary and the effects are complex. Economic development is not just a question of ‘add culture and stir’. Consequently the construction of spectacular cultural venues is a risky business: “just because you build it, it doesn’t mean they’ll come”.
- We might overestimate the effectiveness of culture as tool for societal effects: “visitors are difficult to orient, financial incentives have little effect, and important factors like social background and education level are difficult to influence.”
- More fundamentally: if we use culture as a tool for societal effects, culture might lose its value. Because what if the same effects can be achieved with other, more effective means?
- By entrusting the cultural capital of our society to private sources of income, the government ‘lets the market in’ without knowing how this will transform the cultural sector. The loss of cultural subsidies will not always be compensated by private income, so close monitoring of ‘victims’ is required.
Culture as starting point
To minimize these
risks, the report recommends that we revalue culture on its own. We shouldn’t
ask first what culture can do for other
fields (economy, health, education, etc.) but rather take the cultural field
as a starting point and see how it can be kept healthy. We don’t do this for
culture’s sake only, because a healthy cultural sector implies a healthy link with society. Example: when a regional historic museum loses visitors, we should
determine what cultural value we are losing. If that value is potentially important
(a source of local identity for a region), the government can decide to help the
museum even if it costs money. This is not an economic policy but a cultural
policy that benefits both culture and society.
What the government can do
But there are many
other ways of supporting culture without “driving
it into the safe haven of culture subsidies at the expense of its relation with
the audience”. For example by financing research that can suggest new ways
to strengthen social cohesion via culture. Or by teaching art students not only
how to make art, but also how to “make it” in the world of art. Or by making
publicly financed performances freely available online with an adapted business
model. Or by promoting new recipes for culture that are not dictated by
‘cultural conventions’ and their ‘authorities’: “the gatekeeper must become someone who opens windows and doors”.
And inspiration for
these new cultural recipes is abundant. Flash mobs for example manage to move
people by classical music in the street who might not have gone to a classical
concert by themselves. And surprisingly, classical music has become for several
years now a popular part of the Dutch Lowlands pop festival. These examples
show how wrong it would be to think that society is losing interest in
classical music: it can reach different audiences in ways that don’t
necessarily degrade its quality.
Conclusion
This revaluation of
culture recalls UNESCO’s constitution which states that culture is
indispensable for human dignity for a specific reason: it strengthens peace.
Culture provides the fertile soil peace needs to grow roots: the “intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind”.
Although it’s not easy to measure effects like “moral solidarity” we have to capture the value of culture for society better to understand
what value our money buys. A safe starting point for this cultural
investigation would be what culture is not:
a question of economic rationality. This will help us begin to understand why
Mozart has such tremendous cultural value: “because
of his music and not because he created a tourist industry in Salzburg or gave
his name to decadent chocolate and marzipan Saltzburger kugel”.
