At a recent arts advocacy event in Wisconsin, I was struck again by the loss of words we often suffer when arguing for public expenditure for arts and culture. Economic impact is still limping along as an angle for some. Creative economy arguments seem to be strong but peaking. Tourism and education are also contenders for talking points. And, of course, an effective advocacy strategy blends all of the above in response to its audience.
But four phrases came to me during the speeches, presentations, and conversations at that event. I’m not sure what else to do with them, so I’ll post them here.
It seems to me that a diverse, rich, and vital cultural ecology in any city, state, or country fosters opportunity for every citizen to inform these elements of their existence:
- a creative life
The opportunity to make something from nothing, or transform fragments of objects or thoughts into a cohesive whole, is an ennobling and empowering thing. Everyone should have the option to do so, no matter what their stage of life, circumstance, technical ability, or training. - an expressive life
Finding your voice and having an opportunity to be heard is an essential quality of being alive and aware in the world. - a connected life
The interpersonal and social sharing of meaning is the connective tissue between loved ones, community members, and civilizations. While the arts are not the only means to this sharing, they are among the most powerful and enduring. - a remembered life
The accumulated actions and artifacts of our expressive lives are our most vital threads to who we were, who we are, and who we might become. Beyond our children, they are the most compelling evidence that we ever existed at all.
While these four elements, combined, may influence positive external effects for a city, a county, a state, or a country, they carry the most power when fostered as a central focus of public policy, rather than as tools toward other goals. Perhaps I’m naive to suggest such intrinsic goals for cultural policy and public subsidy. But I’m increasingly noticing us getting lost in the arguments we’ve constructed, and forgetting the reasons we exist.
Well said…unfortunately, or not “the numbers” are still meaningful and never current enough for some at the top who make the decisions and need to justify the arts to the bean counters. I like your description of “the connected” life and am always seeking and looking for the best ways to demonstrate how the arts are tied to other public policy areas like health care–aging, teaching autistic children and adults. Intrinsic value is there–communicating it is key…
Back during the Mapplethorpe controversy days a number of us arts administrators began urging that, as a community, we were letting ourselves and our values be defined by those who opposed us. But, unless we were clear in our vocabulary, it would continue to be thus.
That concept made me do a similar mental wrestling as you just did. The words that became my personal mantra are: creativity, individuality and freedom. I came to realize that, as Shaw’s St. Joan said, “without these things I cannot live.” The exercise helped focus my words and actions. I can now translate those three values into community perspectives and see if there is a conducive meeting gound.
Having read your four points, however, I also like them, very, very much. They are more connective than my inward, personal points. We need both, inward and external. Thanks for your thoughts, for expressing . . . AND connecting!
ah, such an interesting issue. When asked “what do you do?” and I reply, “I’m an artist,” I can sense that many people would like to pat me on the head and say, “oh, that’s nice dear.” But I’m out to prove that with passion, determination, and business savvy it’s possible to join creative/artistic talent that serves a purpose and carries equal weight to other industries such as technology and the sciences. I’m in the process of figuring this out on my blog, and it is a challenge, but well worth the effort.
Really, the arts seamlessly slip into many parts of the world and most don’t realize it. Architecture, commercial design, marketing for example. But finding support for those not on the commercial end of it is a balancing act.
So interesting! For me, as a consultant who does cultural planning AND as an artist/photographer, the tension – or is that balance? – between applied, practical benefits and truly intrinsic ones becomes quite interesting. What I love about your list is the richness, the density, the complexity of what emerges when you pool all of your categories and how effortlessly they flow into a portrait of the value of arts, culture, and creativity for everyone all the time!
I like to think that we are moving toward an appreciation of the values that arts engender. That, I suppose, remains to be seen.
Thanks.
Marc Goldring
If you want to argue for public expenditure for arts and culture with confidence then you need to find out what’s important about arts and culture to members of the public and their communities. Which is what we’re trying to do over at the arts debate: http://www.artsdebate.co.uk. You can post a comment on what you value about the arts, and you can have your say on the principles that should guide public funding.
You can also see what around 170 people had to say on the subject during 20 public discussion groups across England. Unsurprisingly, themes such as expression, communication, identity and good old-fashioned pleasure crop up a lot more often than tourism, regeneration and boosting the creative economy, whatever that might mean…
Since the value of the arts has been known since the beginning – whenever one measures this to be! – one tends to wonder why the West has denuded education and public spaces of their cultural content, and why we must lobby and save and work so very very hard to justify what is actually self evident.
In some countries this cultural denial is more noticeable than in others. In North America in general the denial is more evident than in Europe and in Canada it is more evident in general than in the U.S.A. There is a driving mentality wherever there is too much wealth and power in too few hands and too non-diverse hands, that does not want an equally educated, aware and creative citizenry but would prefer a society in which only a few know that kind of liberty of the self.
This sounds like a Marxist critique but it doesn’t have to lead to a socialist conclusion. I only mention it here to warn that the absence of public recognition and valuation of the arts doesn’t always mean the arts need more explanation and more propaganda. It often means that there are those who do not want us all to be equally free and self-posessed. When we are, we tend to get uppity, disobedient, and want better wages!
Perhaps the abolition of public schools is a better solution?
Most folks want their kids to enjoy the arts. Were they allowed to spend their own money, they might pick a private school with similar inclinations.
This would also diffuse a number of annoying church-state controversies.
Is Al kidding? what ever happened to the belief that public schools are the “last great hope of a democracy”? — (Horace Mann). Let’s not pander to the elite.