Most now recognize that economic impact studies of arts and culture are useful in arguments for public funds, but extraordinarily narrow and flawed in building understanding of actual impact. The Impacts08 project in Liverpool is working to add breadth and rigor to the measurement process, and the range of variables to be assessed.
The five-year study is tracking a full range of variables prior to, during, and after Liverpool’s yearlong designation as European Capital of Culture in 2008. The designation by the European Union is an opportunity for a region to showcase its cultural life, and reframe its international brand as a cultural center.
By benchmarking before the event, and measuring the same indicators in the years during and after, the study hopes both to evaluate the broader impact of such cultural effort, and refine the toolset for other communities to do the same. The project’s baseline and benchmark reports were posted in March. Among the measures and “indicator clusters” are six main categories (described in detail here):
- Economic Impacts and Processes
- The City’s Cultural System
- Cultural Access and Participation
- Identity, Image and Place
- Physical Infrastructure and Sustainability of the City
- The Philosophy and Management of the Process
Here’s hoping the researchers and policy-makers involved can broaden our larger conversation beyond traditional economics.
Thanks to Colin for the link.
As I read the Research Framework, I was reminded of a supposed response by Willem DeKooning to the NEA, concerning his application and specific questions he was asked to answer on the application, to which he supposedly wrote,…”Shouldn’t I be asking the questions?”, and mailed it back to them only to learn a few weeks later, that his application had been denied.(?)
At the risk of being typecast a hardcore racist, I will say that both American and participating ECoC countries are less interested in stressing any quest to showcase actual talent, than they are showcasing multiculturalism, which tells me that esthetics are no longer of interest to those who provide monies for the continuation of excellence, and nothing short of excellence, in the visual and performing arts, but rather …”demographic and geographic data on participants and non-participants in cultural activities and access to opportunities for cultural involvement.
In addition, it focuses on particular sub-cultures and groups and explores experiences, cultural values and reasons for participation…” So, why all the pretention about seeking out and rewarding talent? And why does no one care to admit that our society feels no obligation to redefine what presently passes for as esthetics today? It doesn’t matter which state I am referring to, but my experience was that on page 14 of a particular state art grant, the question posed was “Which particular ethnic group will benefit from viewing your proposed project?”
If anyone reading this has encountered a similar question on their particular state art grant, I would appreciate knowing if this is the now accepted standard on all state art grants, and if so, would anyone care to predict at what point (art “ism” or on who’s watch), this change of direction took place?
Here in New Mexico we have three very distinct and colorful cultures, Native American, Hispanic, and “Anglo” (as the people here say.) We strive to see that all three cultures are well-represented. It has little to do with moral questions. It is just that the mix is what gives our state its wonderfully unique qualities that are appreciated the world over. Culture will always be about “cultures” and the way they interact.
William Osborne
http://www.osborne-conant.org