 |
| "MAP - The chartography game", a performace by the association A PELE (image taken from the website of the National Theatre D. Maria II) |
The Culture White Paper (published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sports in March
2016) sets out how the British government will support the cultural sector in
the coming years. It’s the first document of its kind in 50 years and the
second ever published in the UK.
The document opens by quoting British Prime Minister,
David Cameron, who states: “If you believe in publicly-funded arts and culture
as I passionately do, then you must also believe in equality of access,
attracting all, and welcoming all.”
I don’t know how big the Prime Minister’s passion
actually is. Considering the severe cuts implemented in the British cultural
sector in the last years and the uproar they have caused among the
professionals of the field, it might be just the right thing to say in a White
Paper for Culture, although the
practice so far has proven otherwise (see suggested readings below). Still, this statement and the concrete reference
to “access” seem to set the tone for the whole document. It’s important to mention here that this approach is not exactly new
for the UK. One reads that it began immediately after the Second World War,
when John Maynard Keynes, the first chairman of the Arts Council, shared his
hopes that one day “the theatre, the concert hall and the gallery will be a
living element in everyone’s upbringing” (p.5). When the first White Paper for
the Arts was published in 1965, it also set out the government’s obligation to
sustain and strengthen all that is best in the arts and stated that “the best
must be made more widely available” (p.5).
Thus, fifty years later, this new White Paper presents
the British Government’s plans for the cultural sector, making repeat
references to access, diversity, arts education, well-being and investment. It actually
refers to the cultural sector in the plural – “sectors” – to underline its
diversity. And it identifies four main priorities:
1. Everyone should enjoy the opportunities culture
offers, no matter where they start in life.
2. The riches of our culture should benefit
communities across the country.
3. The power of culture can increase our international
standing.
4. Cultural investment, resilience and reform.
The first two points are of
particular relevance to me, as the British Government considers that its role
is “to enable great culture and creativity to flourish – and to ensure that
everyone can have access to it” (p. 13).
In what concerns the first point, it
opens with a statement by Nicky Morgan, Secretary of State for Education, that
“Access to cultural education is a matter of social justice” (p. 19). In this
chapter, the British Government recognizes that culture should be an essential
part of every child’s education, both in and out of school; that there should
be better access to skills development and clearer pathways for talent, where it
emerges; and that publicly-funded culture should reflect the diversity of the
country. Concrete measures in order to fulfil these goals involve the creation
of new cultural opportunities for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds,
close collaboration with schools, identification of the barriers that prevent
people from under-represented groups becoming professionals in the arts,
opportunities for these people to develop skills with the collaboration of
cultural organisations, etc. (p. 23, 25, 27).
Regarding the second point, and the
obligation of benefitting communities across the country, the British
Government acknowledges that the “cultural sectors make a crucial contribution
to the regeneration, health and wellbeing of the regions, cities, towns and
villages. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Greg
Clark, states that “We are in the middle of a devolution revolution. We want
our national and local cultural institutions to work together to support places
to harness the power of culture to drive economic growth, education and
wellbeing” (p. 29). Priorities in this sense involve promoting the role culture
has in building stronger and healthier communities; fostering local and
national partnerships and requiring national institutions to back local vision;
supporting local communities to make the most of the historic buildings they
cherish; acknowledging that the digital dimension is becoming “a place” in
itself, expanding the ways in which people make and experience culture. Concrete
measures in order to fulfil these goals involve supporting the role and purpose
of the UK City of Culture; supporting and counselling local communities to
develop their vision and finding partners; developing and improving digital
access to public collections and historic environment records (p. 33, 35, 37,
39).
It’s true that the White Paper might
be nothing more than a compilation of politically correct statements. Nevertheless,
it sets a clear base for those wishing to work on it, plan their work with
clear objectives and make the British Government accountable. By involving
politicians from other areas – such as Education, Communities and Local
Government, Tourism and Heritage, the Chancellor of the Exchequer – it makes
clear the obvious, that is the need to involve and guarantee the collaboration
of other sectors in order for Culture to flourish and fulfil its purpose. This
is a collective and coordinated effort.
With the word “access” pleasantly
echoing in my mind from reading the White Paper, I decided to have a better
look at the Portuguese Government’s programme for Culture. I could comment on a number of
things: the fact that the part on Culture is found in the chapter “Priority to
innovation” (together with the energetic transition or the innovation and internationalisation
of companies…?); or the fact that a big part of the measures announced involve
the (ever so inevitable) restructuring of the sector; or the fact that measures
and decisions that belong to a government are mixed with concrete actions that
must be decided and undertaken by cultural organizations themselves (we are
still very unfamiliar with the “arm’s length” concept). I will concentrate,
though, on issues related with access.
There is a first reference right in
the beginning, in the title itself: “Investing in culture, democratising
access” (p.197). The second reference comes in the introduction: “wide recourse
to the new technologies of information which allow for wider access to our
heritage and artistic creation” (p. 198). The concept of access is then
slightly more developed in the second of the six big priorities or objectives
of the Government, the one described as “Educating for a more participated
culture” (pp.200-201).
Once we start reading, it becomes
clear that the concept of “access” is rather limited and very much associated
to media and digital contents (digitalising and making publicly available the
collections of a number of cultural institutions; creating a digital network of
information regarding the cultural sector; promoting and supporting the
creation of portals and digital contents which provide citizens with access to heritage
and contemporary creation). There are two more measures/references in this
part: one to the creation of the Card + Culture (perpetuating the myth that
“money” is a primary barrier to culture – haven’t we learnt anything from the
Brazilian initiative “Vale Cultura”? – see posts below); and another suggesting
“Incentivating the accessibility of people with special needs to cultural activities
and the consumption of media” [sic].
No other clear reference to access is
made in the document, no clear connection is demonstrated between the measures
and actions proposed and the direct benefits in terms of access for the people,
the citizens (not just the sector or culture professionals, as an end to
themselves). There is also no obvious connection to other chapters of the
document, such as “Priority to people” or “More cohesion, less inequalities”.
Can we really discuss culture and
access if our Government limits it to digital access to contents and the
creation of a culture stipend? Will our consecutive governments ever be willing
to face what is for me the real issue, which is the lack of relevance and
intellectual access to what is being done and communicated by many cultural
organizations? Are our governments ever going to plan in the long term, thinking about the whole country and its diversity, instead of repeatedly
wasting resources in restructuring the field? Will they ever envision and
invest efforts in a more democratic culture, instead of constantly planning
ways of "democratising" access to what they and big part of the sector (the
institutionalised sector) define as “valid culture”, as “culture worth having
access to”? Let’s discuss access to culture by all means. It starts by questioning:
What culture? Whose culture? For whom?
Still on this blog
Suggested readings
Arts Professional, Space shifts focus away from digital art
Rebecca Atkinson-Lord, Work in thearts? Then please reconsider all those unpaid hours
No comments:
Post a Comment