Civil society recommends greater involvement for artists in urban development and education to the ASEM8 Summit (Brussels, 2010)

Facilitating dialogue on arts and cultural policies as well as issues of mutual relevance and common interest for Asia and Europe has been a key priority for the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF), since its inception in 1997 by member governments of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM).

In 2012, which marks the 15^th anniversary of the Foundation, policy dialogue initiatives will focus on heritage, creative industries, cultural infrastructure and the role of culture in development. These initiatives will bring together both government officials and civil society representatives in keeping with ASEF’s role as a neutral multi-stakeholder dialogue platform.

————————————-

————————————-

Focus on heritage

Cultural heritage management remains a key priority for governments and civil society in Asia and Europe. The upcoming 5^th ASEM Culture Ministers’ Meeting (September 2012, Indonesia) will focus on “Managing Heritage Cities for a Sustainable Future”. It will build on discussions relating to the challenges of heritage management begun at the 4^th edition of the Culture Ministers’ Meeting (September 2010, Poland), which also acknowledged the significant role of non-governmental stakeholders in heritage.

Heritage as an area of common interest for civil societies in Asia and Europe was reaffirmed at the 2^nd Experts’ Meeting on Cultural Policy, organised in Melbourne in October 2011.

In July 2012, ASEF will co-organise a Public Forum and Experts’ Meeting, “Managing Heritage Cities in Asia and Europe: the role of Public-Private Partnerships” to channel civil society inputs to the 5^th ASEM CMM, in the form of recommendations and good practices. Facilitating such bi-directional dialogue between heritage professionals in Asia and Europe aims to stimulate collective reflection and knowledge sharing, while also serving as an engine and vehicle of civil society contacts. By further aligning this dialogue with the overall intergovernmental ASEM dialogue and including policymakers in the discussions, ASEF reaffirms its role as a conduit between civil society and governments.

Exploring culture and development

Another area of focus emerged in response to the growing acknowledgement of the role of culture in development. The Connect2Culture programme, which has been exploring the intersection between the arts and climate change in recent years, will investigate the role of culture in sustainable human development through dialogue platforms in 2012 and beyond.

Creating dialogue platforms

ASEF will continue to facilitate broad multi-stakeholder dialogue on issues of mutual relevance in arts and culture for Asia and Europe through the third edition of its annual series of Experts’ Meeting on Cultural Policy in 2012. The series, launched in Seoul in 2011, has brought together over 40 civil and governmental experts in two meetings in 2011. Heritage, creative industries and arts education were three topics identified by participating experts for further dialogue in 2012.

Supporting cultural policy research

The Experts’ Meeting series complements ASEF’s support to the global cultural research platform, WorldCP-International Database of Cultural Policies, which aims to significantly enhance access to current information and analyses on the cultural policies and trends of ASEM countries.

Facilitating information exchange

In addition to supporting cultural policy research, information exchange on relevant policy areas in arts and culture is facilitated through culture360.org as well as publications. Specially commissioned features and interviews on cultural policy will be featured on this portal throughout the year. ASEF’s most recent publication in the field of cultural policy is Mapping Cultural Diversity-Good Practices from around the Globe, which profiles 39 innovative projects that protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions in different parts of the world, including 17 from Asia and Europe.

South Korea is among the first Asian countries whose cultural policy profile has been commissioned for the global cultural research platform, WorldCP-International Database of Cultural Policies (worldcp.org). In this article, Kiwon Hong, who is also the author of the upcoming cultural policy profile of South Korea, sets out the historical development of the country’s cultural policy priorities.  

In this article, the final of a two-part series, Kiwon Hong traces the development of cultural policy in South Korea from the 1990s onwards, when focus moved from regulation to autonomy, from central to local and from producer to consumer.

1990s: From regulation to autonomy

It was only in the 1990s that cultural policy came to hold as an independent policy field, both nominally and practically. A nationally renowned writer, Rhee Uh-Ryung, took the first ministry position, in a symbolic move to represent professionalism in the arts and culture. This was the first time in the history of cultural policy that a civilian-professional figure took the lead in a newly-formed Ministry of Culture to manage the independent field. The year 1994 marked the nominal beginning of democratic government that drew a line away from the authoritative military government in the past. Policy focus moved from regulation to autonomy, from central to local, from producer to consumer, and from division to unification.

The financial crisis of Korea in 1997 served as a turning point to redirect cultural policy and administration towards a market-oriented one. Cultural industries gained substantial attention. Along with the interest in the creative sector worldwide, this was seen as a potential new source of producing wealth. The rapid growth in the IT sector and its clientele, the cultural content industry (especially the gaming industry) achieved significant growth, not only locally but also in international market.

Cultural policy issues in the 21^st century

It could be said that at the turn of 21^st century, changes in global economic environment have greatly affected policy direction in the cultural sector. As the interest in the arts as ‘creative industry’ or ‘cultural industry’ increased worldwide, culture came to be seen as an important factor both in the life of human beings and as an economic means. The cultural sector as a whole was regarded as essential groundwork for every developmental aspect of society and economy. Continuous effort has been taken to maintain the standard of ‘1% for culture of national budget’.

South Korea: Percentage of yearly budget for culture

Balancing commercial and public interests

Cultural policy issues in contemporary Korea could be summarized into three main subject areas. How to make policy balance between the commercial drive and public aspect of culture is one crucial area. Support for cultural industry has shown a great leap recently. It is centered around developing technology related to the culture and content industry. Actual subsidy is aimed at supporting infant industries or developing human resources. Contradictory to common assumption about the spread of Korean popular culture in Asia that could have been an outcome of governmental support, those two have no direct linkage in policy terms. Several fields within cultural industries such as online gaming, popular music (K-pop) and television dramas do overwhelmingly represent the cultural industry sector. It is true that success stories in this field trigger more interest in terms of economic impact, domestically and internationally, which buttresses justification for public subsidy requests. However, it remains a big question as to how and to what level the government should act on this matter with commercialized culture increasingly becoming an inevitable component of cultural life.

Enhancing the cultural welfare of citizens

The second issue is how to enhance the cultural welfare of citizenry. Cultural policy has taken two steps to tackle this issue. Cultural welfare cannot be achieved solely by enriching the single side of demand or supply. Maximizing opportunities of encounter between the two has been supported through arts education programmes and cultural vouchers. Legislation to promote arts and cultural education was enacted in 2007. Government funding for placement of ‘arts educators (artist)’ in schools and ‘artist as teachers (TA)’ programme has escalated. More recently, arts and cultural education have come to be regarded as core themes of ‘social education’ and ‘education of lifetime’. Arts and cultural education policies have been initiated based on the belief and evidence that an earlier stage of life cycle act as a stable link between demand and supply.

Another policy within the comprehensive boundary of enhancing cultural welfare is the cultural voucher programme, especially the aftermath of the worldwide financial crisis of 2008 aggravated the economic condition of socially-excluded classes. Various sources have been mobilised to finance the policy. The National Lottery Fund, proceeds from the National Arts and Culture Fund, local government budgets and private contributions form the main components. Details of policy description have evolved so as to minimize stigmatising effects.  Supporting diversified supply has also been attempted to gain some balance in this kind of consumer sovereignty system.

Acknowledging multiculturalism

Acknowledgment of cultural diversity and multiculturalism issue is one of the unanticipated phenomena in the cultural policy scene in South Korea. Given the longstanding tradition of emphasising national culture and its homogeneity, migration and its cultural impact needed to be coped with in regard to the existing value system. It was not only a matter of economic or socio-geographical problems. Ratification of the UNESCO Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005) was timely enough to look at these local changes in the global context. It is the cultural sector’s responsibility to steer proper policy discourse in this regard.

There has also been consideration around policy issues such as the advancement of IT and its impact on cultural life; and, cultural policy correspondence to the unification of Korea. However, the fundamental mission of cultural policy in Korea, considering its centralised and state-oriented system, may lie in inspiring public participation towards the enjoyment of cultural life.

Kiwon Hong is Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Public Policy and Industry, Sookmyung Women’s University, South Korea. She also serves as Director of the Cultural Policy and Administration Programme at the School.

Links and resources to information on Korean cultural policy

Read Part I of this artcle at: http://culture360.org/magazine/korea-an-introduction-to-cultural-policy-part-i/

South Korea is among the first Asian countries whose cultural policy profile has been commissioned for the global cultural research platform, WorldCP-International Database of Cultural Policies (worldcp.org). In this article, Kiwon Hong, who is also the author of the upcoming cultural policy profile of South Korea, sets out the historical development of the country’s cultural policy priorities.  

In this article, the first of a two-part series, Kiwon Hong sets the historical context of cultural policy development from the 7^th century CE to the 1980s.

————————————-

————————————-

Historical context of cultural policy development

The political thinking about the arts may been seen to originate during the 7^th-8^th century (under the unified Shilla dynasty) from the Confucian order and its role in maintaining the state. Music, art, and state ritual were regarded as useful instruments in cultivating and refining human nature to incarnate the Confucian ideal. The state was conferred with the important role of setting theoretical standards in various art forms, especially for those used in courts and governmental ceremonies. However, Confucianism was not prevalent in the everyday life of common classes. The cultural life of ordinary people was a blend of various religions such as Buddhism, Taoism and folklore practices. Confucianism was reinforced only in the late 14^th century with the establishment of the Chosun dynasty, when political doctrine and everyday norm had come to a concordance. The state yielded influence on cultural production and consumption by managing royal institutions in the arts.

The invention of Han-Geul (한글: Korean alphabet) may represent the centralised and state-oriented attitude in cultural undertaking. Han-Geul was invented during the reign of King Sejong (1397-1450). King Sejong, a revolutionary monarch dedicated to the establishment of national identity and a knowledge-based society, founded a form of special institution solely devoted to academic research and the creation of new alphabet (Jip-Hyeon-Jeon). While the Chinese script was used by the learned class, it was hard to learn for the common people. It also did not coincide well with the spoken language. As a result of strenuous effort, a new phonetic alphabet system was finally created in 1446 (proclaimed by publishing Hoon Min Jeong Eum: Righteous sound to enlighten the people). The written language was an effective medium to convey inherited wisdom and ethical norms that could not only develop knowledge, but also sustain the solidarity of the society. It is also noteworthy that literary art flourished as the language system evolved with time.

Original script of Hoon Min Jeong Eum (훈민정음)

The Japanese colonial period (1910-1945) acts as a great divide in terms of the cultural sector. Historical facts were distorted, traditional cultural practices and conventions debased, and heritage sites and monuments were disrupted to serve its interest. Use of the Korean language was banned and policy to convert surnames to Japanese was reinforced. All in all, there was no room for proper cultural policy discourse in this antagonistic situation.

Cultural policy during the modernization period

1940s and 50s: Infrastructure building begins 

Political turmoil after the Second World War (1939-45) and the Korean War (1950-53) had an indirect impact on the formation of modern cultural policy in South Korea.

The independence of the Korean Peninsula from Japan in 1945 was followed by the territorial division of the North and South. With this originated the subsequent ideological contention, also evident in the cultural sector. As communist doctrine towards art and culture were evident (state-control of style and content), so too was present an ideological drift in the other half of peninsula. There was no specifically pronounced cultural policy orientation, except for the ideological drift that any kind of activity that could be regarded as endangering democratic polity was to be curtailed.

Basic endeavours in terms of building infrastructure were undertaken, such as establishing a few national cultural facilities such as the National Library, the National Museum, the National Theater and the National Korean Traditional Music Institute.

1960s and 70s: An inception period of modern cultural policy

The decade from the 1960s to the 1970s could be regarded as a period of contradictory accomplishment in terms of cultural policy. Being a government that came into reign by coup d’états, it retained a two-fold attitude in dealing with cultural matters. The government put forth great effort to refurbish national cultural identity and to restore cultural heritage damaged during the colonial period. By conferring upon itself the role of safe guarder of national culture, the government tried to partly certify justification for its regime. The other side of preserving national culture was the oppression of culture that envisioned liberal, rebellious, and democratic thoughts.

Despite this flaw, this could be regarded as an inception period of modern cultural policy in South Korea. The first comprehensive legal provision to promote culture and the arts, namely the Law to promote Culture and the Arts (1972) was enacted in this period. The cultural sector was not managed independently, but covered multiple fields as to include public relations and information (Ministry of Public Information or the Ministry of Culture and Information). The cultural policy area was also one of the fields that had to coincide with the overall national policy agenda and it followed the national format of setting up intermediate plans such as ‘Five Year Culture Promotional Planning’. The ‘planning’ idea in arts and culture had the effect of diminishing the autonomous development in cultural sector.

The second round of military governance partly followed the policy direction of the former, but replenished the cultural welfare side of policy. Decades of despotic government and compact economic development had a twofold effect on Korean society. It could be referred to as a flourishing period in terms of expansion in cultural infrastructure. Local governments were financially supported by the central government to build new cultural facilities such as theaters, public libraries and museums. These efforts, however, did not produce a grand impact because they had not been paired with a nurturing of human capital, which gives life to these material objects. Local governments were unprepared in terms of programmatic orientation on how to run these facilities. This ‘Grands Travaux’ type of centrally-planned policy resulted in the monotonous design and function of art centers, which were indistinguishable from each other and lacked the unique characteristics of local cultural identity.

1980s: Economic affluence impacts cultural arena

Economic affluence triggered interest in the cultural arena; however, there were limited alternatives in terms of artistic ideas and expressions. Failure to democratise the Korean political system in the 1980s brought about substantive oppression in freedom of thought and artistic expression. Confrontation with the communist North also aggravated the situation in the name of protecting national security. During this period, the opening of the cultural market to the United States and Japan was limited, as local arts and culture suffered from various regulations.

Kiwon Hong is Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Public Policy and Industry, Sookmyung Women’s University, South Korea.  She also serves as Director of the Cultural Policy and Administration Programme at the School.

Links and resources to information on Korean cultural policy

Read Part II of this article at: http://culture360.org/magazine/korea-an-introduction-to-cultural-policy-part-ii/

Vietnam is among the first Asian countries whose cultural policy profile has been commissioned for the global cultural research platform, WorldCP-International Database of Cultural Policies (worldcp.org).  In this article, Bui Hoai Son, who is also the author of the upcoming cultural policy profile of Vietnam, sets out the key priorities and issues in arts and culture in his country.

In Vietnam, the term “culture” is understood in a very broad sense and with different meanings that relate to all aspects of the material and mental life of human beings.

————————————-

————————————-

Culture understood variously in society

Vietnam keen to play active role in international cultural co-operation

The Vietnamese see culture as something broad about human life and civilization. Thus, the Vietnamese usually use “culture” in phrases such as “cultural person” (meaning “a civilized person”) and “cultural level” (referring to their education level).

In daily life, culture is understood as literature and the arts, such as poetry, fine arts, theatre, films etc.

In some Vietnamese dictionaries, “culture” is explained as follows:

+ Culture refers to the material and mental values that were created by humans in history (Great Vietnamese Dictionary, published by the Ministry of Education and Training, 1998)

+ Culture refers to human activities that satisfy the needs of mental life

+ Culture is scientific knowledge

+ Culture refers to a high level in social life, an expression of civilization

+ Culture is a term to refer to a period of ancient history, for example Hoa Binh culture, Dong Son culture (Vietnamese Dictionary, Institute of Linguistic Studies, 2004)

One of the most common definitions of culture is the way it was understood by the late President Ho Chi Minh: “…human created and invented language, script, morals, laws, science, religions, culture and arts and daily tools for clothing, eating, accommodation…using methods. All these creativenesses and inventions are culture.”

A national definition of culture?

Vietnam has no proper national definition of culture. However, in a broad sense, culture is seen to be included in eight domains namely ideology, morals and ways of life; heritage; education and training; science and technology; culture and arts; mass media; international exchange on culture; and, cultural institutions.

In a narrow sense, culture is seen to refer to some domains that belong to the sphere of state management under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism such as performing arts; cinema; fine arts and photography; library; heritage; grassroots culture; and, ethnic culture.

Key national priorities in arts and culture

The Vietnamese government has the following key national priorities in arts and culture:

• Building healthy people, ways of life, cultural life and environment
• Safeguarding and promoting national cultural heritage
• Safeguarding and promoting cultural heritage of ethnic minority groups
• Developing the work of literature and arts
• Paying respect and promoting the good cultural and moral values of religions and beliefs
• Strengthening the work of mass media
• Intensifying international cooperation in culture
• Building a system of cultural institutions

Key cultural policies

The Vietnamese government has put forward some national policies for arts and culture. They are currently making and amending laws related to cultural heritage, cinema, libraries, education, publishing and copyrights. There is also a focus on building social movements such as “building cultural life” and “building new rural areas”.

The government is setting up policies on privatization and decentralization of cultural activities and for strengthening the management of cultural activities and services. Investment in traditional art forms is encouraged, National target programmes are in place for conservation of heritage buildings and sites as well as the preservation and promotion of the intangible heritage of Vietnam’s ethnic groups. Strengthening investment in and development of cultural institutions in mountainous, remote, borderline and island areas is a priority area. Strengthening the capacities of grassroot cultural workers is also being stressed in policy. Cinema development has also been accorded priority.

 Public funding for the arts

In Vietnam, all public institutions for arts and culture are supported by the government. In principle, the government has funding policies for arts institutions in accordance with an Inter-Ministerial Circular between Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Finance in 1989, as per which the government will support art institutions with a minimum standard investment for their activities (including salary and expenses to set up performances ordered by the government). To get the support of the government, arts institutions have to meet with some set requirements.

Role of civil society actors in arts and culture

Civil society actors have an active role in the field of arts and culture. They respond to society’s needs and demands in arts and culture. They reflect the voices of people in their forums to government institutions in culture and the arts, so that these institutions will implement proper policies and mechanisms that reflect reality. Civil society actors build partnerships with similar organisations in other countries, leading to better international understanding of and cooperation with Vietnam. They also support their members by providing information, knowledge and skills to improve activities in the field of arts and culture.

International cultural co-operation priorities

Vietnam is actively involved in some regional forums and enjoys good relations in the field of culture and the arts with UNESCO, the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), ASEAN Committee on Culture and Information (ASEAN COCI), SEAMEO SPAFA Regional Centre for Archaeology and Fine Arts, World Intellectual Property Organization and ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property).

Key countries with which Vietnam enjoys good relations in the field of cultural exchange and co-operation include members of the south-east Asian ASEAN community, Australia, Belgium, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Sweden, the United States and the United Kingdom.

Current cultural policy issues and challenges

Firstly, the culture sector is a multi-domain sector; hence, existing cultural policies cannot cover all aspects of activities that are in this sphere. Secondly, the quality of cultural managers and workers do not meet the demands of ground reality, in terms of both numbers and quality. Thirdly, the system relevant to culture and the arts, though improving with time, still requires to be worked on in terms of amending and improving laws and regulations. Fourthly, the budget for culture and the arts are limited. Fifthly, the differing viewpoints of cultural managers and those making cultural policies affect the result and quality of the policy. Sixthly, rapid changes in ground realities in the field of arts and culture create obstacles in the path of effective cultural planning and policy making.

Bui Hoai Son, PhD, is the Vice Director of the Vietnam Institute of Culture and Arts Studies, based in Hanoi. He is currently working on the cultural policy profile of Vietnam for inclusion in the global cultural research platform, WorldCP-International Database of Cultural Policies (worldcp.org).  WorldCP is an international database and searchable website of country-specific profiles of arts and cultural policies, issues and trends supported by the Asia-Europe Foundation.

To read more about arts and culture in Vietnam, visit http://culture360.org/country/vietnam/

To read more about the WorldCP-International Database of Cultural Policies, visit http://tiny.cc/282jbw

Malou Jacob

Contributed by Ulla-Alexandra Mattl

Malou Jacob is a playwright and the Executive Director of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) in the Philippines, which was started by a group of artists immediately after the revolution in 1986 and which is composed by 19 committees at lowest level.

During the 5^th World Summit on Arts and Culture in Melbourne, Australia on 3-6 October she calls for action in order to “turn the world economic crisis into an opportunity”.

Speaking during the session on Changing Places – Cultural Policies in Asia she says that the Philippines are one of the richest countries in the world but asks herself why they are still so marginalised economically. In a country that is prone to earthquakes and eruptions from active volcanoes, buffeted by typhoons and has had to deal with decades of conflict and poverty she argues that there can be a way to further the creative and cultural industries so that the artist is at the core.

The development of the cultural industries should also be for the economic benefit of the artist – not at his expense. She points at the fact that artists are exploited by loan sharks, galleries who take most of the profit when the art work is sold but also talks about a lack of respect for copyright.

During the summit she stresses that “in the spirit of cultural rapprochement, it is imperative that the meeting of Asia and Europe in the 21st Century be based on equality, mutual respect, and just remuneration for the Asian traditional artists.”

Jacob believes that the artist should be developed in parallel to the creative and the cultural industries. In this way, with the help of the NCCA and while keeping in mind that the originator is not the government, a new breed of cultural entrepreneurs could be created.

In 2008 when she came in as deputy director of the NCCA Jacob introduced the “Artists for Crisis programme”. So far there have been three sessions (2009, 2010 and 2011). The concept of the programme is to open the NCCA which is inclusive – not exclusive and send artists from all across the country to mostly rural and remote areas. These are visual artists, poets, dramatist, musicians who want to share their art with victims of war, natural disasters like typhoons, earthquakes etc. They create a module on how to share their talent which is then brought to the community and being tested. Then three workshops are lined up before the year ends. Those benefiting are mainly women, young people and children.

During the programme more than 90 artists across the country have been involved so far, while it all started with only four master facilitators.

Now that the model has been tested and they are sure that it works Jacob is convinced that it will be exported to other countries. “The idea has already been presented to the ASEAN and we are waiting for feedback”, she says. Since the ASEAN is part of the Pacific Ring of Fire (PRF) and also suffers from typhoons she believes that they are likely to pick up on it.

It is a strategy that opens up the NCCA to artists who are not part of its committees and at the same time, she says that they are seeing that the programme has an effect on the quality of artists who are part of them.

Through the programme the NCCA is able to distinguish the artists from marginalised communities. However, they cannot afford to go to Manila or other cities. “We have to give them opportunities to own their talent” Jacob says.

Jacob is convinced that the programme is one way of turning the economic crisis into an opportunity for artists –by involving them as much as possible.

“If you are a famous artist from the University of Manila or you are a brilliant playwright and you go to a remote area or to a marginalised community, it deepens you and changes you as an artist, it matures you. It is good for the artist coming from the city; it is good for the artist and the young people there. The NCCA gains from it because artists part of the committees become much better. The city gains from it and the child gains from it.” It is an exchange – within the country. As much as the Philippines want to work and co-operate internationally there is still a great need to connect different social groups within the country.

This is Jacob’s first World Summit on Arts and Culture. While she did not know very much about IFACCA before she arrived in Melbourne, she said she would be going back home and spread information about the organisation, believing that it is an organisation which “is really going to do something”.

During her time at the conference, she says, she has also thought of a possible future role IFACCA could be playing. “While Australia is in Asia it is sometimes counted in and sometimes it isn’t”, she says. Jacob suggests that Australia could be a bridge between Europe and Asia: “Australia can convince Europe to come to Asia in the 21^st century on equal terms with fairness etc. Australia can do that through IFACCA which could have a closer look at what the role and significance of Australia could be”, she finds.

Keeping the theme of the World Summit “Creative Intersections” (exploring how the arts and creativity are integral to other sectors) in mind Jacob once more points to what is for her the most important intersection.

“An economy of culture that will primarily benefit the artists who may be traditional or contemporary. If you do not lose sight of that then there is a reason for the development of the cultural industries.”

Ulla-Alexandra Mattl is the Co-ordintor of EUNIC in Brussels and the Project Manager of the European project Poliglotti4.eu. She is also the EU Correspondent for the Artsmanagement Network. Ulla is specialised in cultural relations and holds an MA in Cultural Policy and Arts Management from City University London as well as an MA in Finno-Ugric Studies and French with focus on Sociolinguistics www.poliglotti4.eu

On 3-6 October the 5^th World Summit on Arts and Culture took place in Melbourne, Australia, coinciding with the development of a National Cultural Policy of Australia, something of real significance for Asia.

By now the World Summit is an established triennial event in the cultural sector and an opportunity for real international exchange and inspiration by offering a wealth of expertise from across the world. This year the event was jointly organised by IFACCA and the Australia Council for the Arts and in partnership with Arts Victoria.

The Summit’s theme creative intersections explored how artists can give a voice to diverse communities and concerns through collaborations with experts in health and well-being, the environment, education, business, new technologies, cultural identity and more. At the conference Michael Mel (Pro Vice Chancellor, University of Goroka, Papua New Guinea) explained to the audience how even the flora, fauna and bird life can play a crucial role to exchange processes in his country.

While the theme was relevant to everyone attending the Summit, global differences as well as differences between Asia and Europe became very quickly apparent. Quite noticeably issues are handled in different ways and challenges, possibilities as well as priorities differ for the cultural and creative sector and for the artist but also for individual governments, arts funding agencies and stakeholders.

At the same time, however, the three days at the Summit also showed that all of us have just as much in common. On the first day, Eduard Miralles (Cultural Relations Advisor, Barcelona Provincial Coucil) pointed out that “it used to be the case that places are different and people are the same whereas now it is the other way round – places are the same and people are different”. In his statement there is of course an obvious link to the debate around globalisation and its effects on culture.

In terms of both speakers and delegates, Asia and Europe were well represented at the conference, while, with the support of the Asia-Europe Foundation and its online portal culture360.org, an entire roundtable was dedicated to cultural policies in Asia. The rise of China and India as economic powers, the decline of Europe and the consequences for co-operation and cultural policies were mentioned in various contexts.

Kiwon Hong (Assistant professor of cultural policy, Sookmyung Women’s University, Korea) explained to me how Korea is trying to profile itself as the hub for diversity and co-operation within Asia as well as a best practice area, stressing that Europe is not at all that visible. She sees co-operation in Asia still very much bilateral, not like in Europe where two or three countries come together to cooperate on a project. “While the mobility of Asian artists seems to be increasing there is currently a lack of inbound activity”, she says.

Pooja Sood (Director, KOJ Interanional Artists’ in Association, India) underlined that for her organisation it was really important to connect with Africa and Latin America for instance, with areas that felt equally marginalised . Sood, who set up the South Asian Network for the Arts (SANA) stressed the importance of exchange, and the difference good international artists can make. “It’s important to put Indian and international artists together – that’s how we have grown.” She talks about how the spin off effect has led to suggested strategies for local artists and has been a huge learning experience for them. “Talking about art is as relevant as doing it”, she says.

Throughout the summit examples were given as to how, particularly in Asia, the arts and culture are seen as the intermediary for social change due to growing economic development. Increasingly the arts and culture are seen as important factors for the development of society and job creation. While the importance of culture for other sectors was stressed in many places, Kathy Keele (CEO, Australia Council for the Arts and IFACCA board member) pointed out at the end of the Summit that “we should never lose the value of the arts for its own sake”.

The world economic crisis and questions around climate change and sustainability were high on speakers’ agendas. Malou Jacob (Former Executive Director, National Commission for Culture and the Arts, Philippines) encouraged the audience to turn the world economic crisis into a new economic order, an opportunity. She added that maybe we could come up with a new breed of cultural entrepreneurs.

The topic of climate change and sustainability was tackled in a round table supported by ASEF as part of its Connect2 Culture Programme. Alison Tickell (Director, Julie’s Bicycle, UK) works on connecting the arts and the industry and on raising awareness on how operations in the cultural sector impact on climate change. Tickell also gave a final key note speech stressing that “there is nothing of more relevance to us now than climate change.” While Europe is increasingly looking at green policies, Asia is still lagging behind and is wondering why it should get involved, the questioning leading to a continuous redefinition of issues around arts and sustainability.

Ways of funding the arts was naturally a recurring topic in view of IFACCA being the global network of national arts funding agencies. While Europe is facing fierce cuts in the cultural sector, funding in many Asian countries remains either relatively stable or is seeing an increase. An increase in funding can mostly be noticed for the cultural industries and not necessarily for the individual artist.

On the occasion of the Summit, the WorldCP-International database of cultural policies was launched. A compendium of cultural policies was already developed for Europe and is now being further developed on a global scale. The World CP aims to document the arts and cultural policies of the world. It will certainly help to stimulate dialogue between stakeholders on arts and cultural policy.

Delegates were also introduced to the Europe-China Cultural Compass by Shen Qilan (Editor, Art World Magazine, China). The Compass, an initiative by partners EUNIC in China, the Goethe-Institut, the British Council, the Danish Cultural Institute and supported by ASEF is part of an ongoing dialogue between Europe and China and contains a broad range of knowledge relevant for co-operation.

Overall, the 5^th World Summit on Arts and Culture offered a perfect opportunity for the exchange of best practices. The realisation how much there is to be shared and needs to be shared between countries made it such a worthwhile and uplifting event. Delegates already anticipate the the next World Summit which will take place in Santiago de Chile, on 13-16 January 2014.

Ulla-Alexandra Mattl is the Co-ordintor of EUNIC in Brussels and the Project Manager of the European project Poliglotti4.eu. She is also the EU Correspondent for the Artsmanagement Network. Ulla is specialised in cultural relations and holds an MA in Cultural Policy and Arts Management from City University London as well as an MA in Finno-Ugric Studies and French with focus on Sociolinguistics www.poliglotti4.eu

Taeck-soo Chun, Secretary General, Korean National Commission for UNESCO speaks at the inaugural Experts' Meeting on Cultural Policy (Seoul, July 2011)

The protection and promotion of cultural heritage; the development of independent infrastructure for the arts; and, capacity building for arts management are some common priorities shared by Asian countries in the field of arts and culture.

The promotion of multiculturalism, diversity and social cohesion at the regional level remain key priorities in Europe.

Creative industries, heritage and arts education are topics of common relevance for multi-stakeholder dialogue at the intra-Asia and Asia-Europe levels in 2012.

Experts gather at the 2nd Experts' Meeting on Cultural Policy (Melbourne, October 2011)

These were the key conclusions drawn by governmental officials and cultural professionals at two Experts’ Meetings on Cultural Policy co-organized by the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) in 2011 in the framework of the WorldCP-International Database of Cultural Policies.

WorldCP is a central, web-based and continuously updated database of country-specific profiles of cultural policies. It was launched at the 5th World Summit on Arts and Culture in Melbourne in October 2011. WorldCP is supported by an international consortium of partners, led by the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies (IFACCA) and including the Asia-Europe Foundation.

WorldCP-Asia, a central component in the development of WorldCP, is a major new initiative to document the arts and cultural policies of countries in Asia, with specific focus on member countries of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM).

As part of WorldCP, a series of Experts’ Meetings on Cultural Policy was launched in Seoul in July 2011 to facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogue on issues of mutual relevance in arts and culture for Asia and Europe. The inaugural meeting, hosted by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, South Korea and the Korean National Commission for UNESCO, brought together a group of 20 policymakers, researchers and commentators from Asia, Australia and Europe.

The second meeting in the series, held on 7 October 2011 in Melbourne alongside the 5th World Summit on Arts and Culture, gathered 23 policymakers, researchers and arts administrators from ASEM member countries.

The full Summary Reports of the two Experts’ Meetings are available below for download.

ASEF’s support to WorldCP and the Experts’ Meetings on Cultural Policy is in the framework of its programme, Asia-Europe Compendium of Cultural Policies.

Brochure WorldCP-International Database of Cultural Policies

SummaryReport-1stExpertsMeeting-Seoul

SummaryReport-2ndExpertsMeeting-Melbourne

The NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR THE ARTS was established in the Republic of Ireland in September 2009. The purpose of this body is to act as a lobbying group for the arts to key policy makers in Ireland. The policy makers targeted are T.Ds (Teachta Dála), members of Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas (the Irish Parliament), Senators, members of Seanad Éireann, the upper house of the Oireachtas and local authority officials and councillors.

Broadly speaking the NCFA is working to achieve its aims through three main channels. The NCFA advocates for the arts, at both a national and local level, engaging with both the political establishment and with the general public.  It is also gathers evidence to support its case for the value of the arts and is about to commission its first piece of research. The campaign is also fighting to maintain and grow investment in arts & culture.

The campaign engages with all political parties and candidates, promotes understanding of the value of the arts and seeks commitment to continued investment in the arts. The NCFA membership is a broad and inclusive coalition of people and organisations working in the arts and members of the general public. The campaign believes that the arts are an absolute necessity for a healthy society.

NCFA claims the value of the contemporary and challenging as well as the classic and traditional arts. They believe that a culturally rich life should be accessible to all. The NCFA is for all the people of Ireland who, through their taxes and patronage, support and value the arts. It is for audiences, from children to aficionados, who enjoy the arts in all its forms. NCFA is for all those who believe in this vision, particularly artists and arts organisations.

The National Campaign for the Arts was established in response to an Irish government report which, in the light of the economic crisis, was asked to recommend cuts in public spending. The McCarthy Report, as it was known, was published in July 2009.  The report recommended amongst other things, the closure of the Irish Film Board and Culture Ireland. It also recommended that the existence of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism be ‘critically examined’. In response to these recommendations and in the shadow of the 2010 Budget, the arts communities of Ireland, led by the performing arts resource organisation Theatre Forum, decided to take action. On Wednesday 23 September 2009, the National Campaign for the Arts (NCFA) was officially launched at The Ark, A Cultural Centre for Children, in Dublin.

The campaign had five initial demands which included the retention of Culture Ireland, the agency for the promotion of Irish arts worldwide, and the Irish Film Board, the maintenance of existing levels funding for the Arts Council, retention of the artists´ income tax exemption scheme and retention of the arts as part of a senior ministerial portfolio.

The 2009 campaign was successful in seeing all of its demands met, except the maintenance of existing levels of funding to the Arts Council. A 5.6% cut to the Arts Council in the 2010 Budget, which translated into a €9 million reduction, left more than 300 organisations with severely decreased funding, while 30 organisations had their grant aid cut completely.

The NCFA continued its work on behalf of the arts communities in 2010. The activities of the year culminated in two key events – the National Day of Action and Culture Source.

The National Day of Action was held on Friday 17September.  On that day arts workers and artists all 43 constituencies around the Republic of Ireland met their local TDs. This included a meeting in County Offaly with the then Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Brian Cowen. The event was a huge success attracting much national press coverage and raising the whole profile of the organisation.

On Tuesday 21 September 2010, NCFA hosted Culturesource, an introduction to culture and the arts for senior civil servants and policy makers in Government departments. The seminar focused on the role of arts and creativity in the curriculum and as a catalyst for the creative economy and society. This was very well attended by both members of the arts community and Government policy makers.

The aims for 2011 were very clear.  It was time for the NCFA to move from being a tactical and reactive ‘campaign’ to a more strategic and proactive organisation or ‘movement’.  The NCFA needed to review its structure as well as refresh and refocus its goals and priorities.

The achievements for 2011 are already significant. The NCFA held election hustings and met 70% of new TDs in a nationwide Meet and Greet event. They have tirelessly lobbied Ministers and briefed Senators, whilst all also continuing to engage the general public. In the autumn, prior to the election of a new President of Ireland, the NCFA held Presidential hustings. There have also been meetings with the Arts Council, Local Authority City and County Managers with meetings with Local Councillors and Local Authority Arts Officers pending.

The NCFA are embarking on a programme of gathering research and are about to commission a pioneering first phase of research on the value of the arts. They are in the process of identifying partners for quantitative and longitudinal research, writing terms of reference for research and writing a position paper on arts and education.

The National Campaign for the Arts has also restructured itself. The whole organization to date has been volunteer led. It was recognized that existing structure was no longer sustainable and it would make it harder for the NCFA to achieve its long-term aims. The NCFA aims to be a light touch organisation with low burden of cost in administration. It will be an accountable, democratic and transparent organisation. The NCFA will identify Constituency Co-ordinators in each of the 43 electoral constituencies nationwide, hold regional meetings and appoint a new National Steering Committee (NSC). All this, with a view to calling its first general assembly in early 2012.

The NCFA has proved to be a big success but there is still more to do. The campaign is continuing to promote the value of the arts as a vital part of contemporary Irish life and working to ensure the arts are on local and national political agendas.  Through this period of restructuring and reassessment the National Campaign for the Arts will move forwards becoming more proactive and strategic in its aims and operation. This will mobilise the artists and all those involved and supportive of the arts across Ireland to a greater degree, propelling the organisation forwards into 2012 and beyond.

Economics predicts that cultural policies will expand the cultural sector; that support for culture will, in economic terms, increase the quantity of cultural goods and services supplied and demanded (see Modelling the economic impacts of cultural policies).

This expansionary effect might be thought of as a fundamental ‘economic impact’ of cultural policies.

The impact is most obvious in the case of direct provision, where governments provide cultural experiences that would not normally be supplied by the market – for example, a national gallery with free entry.

But most types of intervention promote cultural activity. Grants and subsidies directly fund the production of cultural experiences. Just as farm subsidies boost the agricultural sector by enticing farmers to keep working their land, so cultural subsidies boost the cultural sector by funding activities of creatives and cultural organisations. Indirect interventions – such as tax breaks, philanthropic incentives, market development initiatives, research, leadership or mentoring programs, and audience incentives – also provide an expansionary stimulus to the sector by making cultural activities less risky, more viable, or more sustainable.

So, whether or not it is their main aim, cultural policies tend to expand the cultural sector. And logically, the greater the government intervention, the greater the expansion expected.

This expansionary economic impact can be measured and tested. All we need is two statistical indicators: one measuring the level of government support for culture; the other measuring the size of the cultural sector.

The figures below show two such indicators for Australia for the period 1991 to 2006. Government support for culture is measured by government expenditure on culture. Sector size is measured by employment in cultural occupations. (More detail on these indicators at the bottom of this page)

The two measures follow broadly similar paths over the period. Rising from 1991, and particularly steeply between 1996 and 2001, the lines level off from 2001 to 2006. Their similarity is illustrated more dramatically in the figure below, which superimposes the two series on the same graph.

Cultural employment and government expenditure, Australia 1991 to 2006

If such a close correlation seems too good to be true, consider the data at its most basic level. There are two distinct time periods, shown as shaded areas on the figure: the first, when both cultural expenditure and cultural employment are lower; the second when both cultural expenditure and cultural employment are higher.

At this simple level of interpretation, the indicators could be seen as moving in concert over the period. Such closeness is repeated in data from New Zealand, as shown in the figure below.

Cultural employment and government expenditure, New Zealand 1991 to 2006

New Zealand’s government expenditure series is a little more volatile than Australia’s. But again, standing back and looking at the broader landscape, the two New Zealand series also track in a strikingly similar way across the period. (For the record, between 1991 and 2006 government cultural expenditure rises from $46 to $127 per capita; employment in cultural occupations from 2.2 to 2.7 percent of total employment)

There is another way to view the data that reveals more clearly the close relationship between the two series. In the figures below, cultural employment is plotted against government cultural expenditure for each country at each census year (1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006). Lines are added to provide a visual reference.

Cultural expenditure and cultural employment 1991 to 2006

These figures show the strong correlation between the two measures: lower values of government expenditure are associated with lower levels of cultural employment; higher values of government expenditure with higher levels of cultural employment. The strength of the relationship is revealed by how close the data points are to the line. (Data points a long way away from the line would imply a weaker relationship)

By now it should be evident that the relationship between the two series is remarkably strong. The numbers tell a clear story: For both countries, increases in cultural expenditure have coincided with expanding cultural sectors.

What does this mean? Taken at face value, it seems that cultural policies in Australia and New Zealand have lead to expansions in those countries’ cultural sectors. In this sense, the policies might be hailed as successes. Before drawing this conclusion, however, it is worth considering three important limitations in the data.

First, the data show correlations, not causation. They show that higher levels of cultural expenditure have been associated with higher levels of cultural employment in the two countries, not that increases in cultural expenditure have actually caused increases in cultural employment. This is a common data problem for policymakers, who are usually unable to perform the sorts of double-blind clinical trials used in medical research to measure cause and effect. The best way to infer causality in policy is through sound argument and robust theory. Economics, as described earlier, provides good reasons to argue that the increases in cultural expenditure seen in Australia and New Zealand did indeed play some part in expanding the countries’ cultural sectors.

Second, the data show quantities only. They say nothing about quality, about whether one time period is better than the other, or whether cultural expansion brought improved cultural experiences. The data here only tell us that the expansion occurred, not whether it was a good thing, or whether the gains from expansion outweighed any losses.

Finally, although the relationship is strong for the period under consideration, this does not mean that it will hold in the future. The data cannot predict that further increases in government cultural expenditure will stimulate further expansions in the cultural sector. New data for both countries will be available from censuses undertaken this year. It will be interesting to see if the relationship uncovered here still holds for 2011.

Even with these caveats in mind, the data do reveal a remarkably strong relationship between government cultural expenditure and cultural employment. In both Australia and New Zealand, increases in government expenditure between 1991 and 2006 have gone hand-in-hand with increases in cultural employment. With the support of economic modelling, it is hard not to interpret the growth in employment as driven, if only in part, by government policy.

And, though the data are no proof that the countries are culturally better off, they do point to cultural policies as having at least a quantitative impact. Rising cultural expenditures in Australia and New Zealand have, at the very least, gained ‘traction’. By this measure, then, Australasia’s cultural policies appear to have enjoyed a degree of success.

Christopher Madden is a cultural policy research analyst and statistician. He has worked for a range of cultural policy agencies across Australasia. From 2001 to 2008 he was Research Analyst at the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies. Christopher’s research can be viewed at his website artspolicies.org.

Note on the statistical indicators

Government expenditure on culture

Indicator: real government expenditure on culture per capita
This annual data comes from government accounts compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in Australia and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage in New Zealand. Expenditure includes both recurrent and capital and is expressed in per capita to take account of growth in the size of each country. The effects of inflation have been removed (each are ‘real’ series expressed in 2009 dollars). Australian data include national and state government cultural expenditures, but not local government. New Zealand data include national government expenditure but not local government or Lottery Grants Board funding. Indicators for both countries include recurrent and capital expenditure.

The author is grateful to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage for providing unpublished data on government cultural expenditure in New Zealand.

Cultural sector size

Indicator: employment in cultural occupations as a percent of total employment
This data comes from each country’s Census. Data are only available as five-yearly ‘snapshots’, seen on the figures as the data points. Lines are added to provide a rough visual reference only. Employment in cultural occupations is expressed as a percentage of total employment to take account of economic growth and business cycles such as booms and recessions.

“Art connects us all”. This testimonial written on the culture360.org creative map by the Greek delegate Theo Anagnostopoulos, well reflects the spirit of the 5th World Summit on Arts and Culture that took place last week in Melbourne, Australia.

More than 500 delegates from all over the world, spanning from South America, to Micronesia, from Europe to Africa and Asia, were given an opportunity to learn from each other experiences and exchange ideas around the theme of “creative intersections”.

The discussions that took place during the four intense days of roundtables identified a number of policy “pressure points”, which could serve as priority areas for further dialogues. The main points highlighted the importance of new cultural behaviours, the need for new public funding approaches, the necessity of educational approaches that link with local communities.

At the same time, the delegates recognized the significance of old cultural expressions in creating “meetings” between people and how we all have a responsibility to make sure these cultural expressions are supported and disseminated.

In line with the idea of “creating intersections and meeting places”, culture360.org has developed along the Summit, its first interactive artistic project in collaboration with the artist Hugh Davies.

The culture360.org map is shaping up

The idea was to give a visual and physical representation to the comments of the members of the culture360.org community as well as to the delegates that where at the Summit.

The result is a collaborative work that starts with the answers to the online survey “how are the arts a catalyst for change in today’s society?”, and expands to include thoughts and expectations more related to the Summit itself.

Some of the posts added to the map

The collaboration with Hugh Davies, was instrumental in shaping the map by engaging the Summit delegates  to contribute their own vision on the role of the arts, thereby allowing the map to socially evolve.

At the end of the 4 days of discussions, the interactive map has come to reflect some of the themes and “pressure points” that have emerged from the discussions.

Arts and local communities

Hugh Davies with one of the delegates in front of the map

The importance of local communities and the need to link arts and cultural changes to the local context was very much reinforced:

“Arts and communities as a vehicle for equal and different”  (Finland)

“Arts help us to be local while connecting us globally” (Mongolia)

Out of the comfort zone

Through the arts, we come to question set ideas and we envisage new perspectives:

“Arts create and foster a sense of belonging” (Indonesia)

“Arts allow a space for disrupting settled realities and creating new possibilities” (Nigeria)

“The arts tap into new neural pathways and create new understandings and shifts in perspectives. That is why we need the arts.” (Australia)

“Be sure before leaving this summit to leave something, and certainly share part of your culture”, writes a delegate from Tunisia on the culture360.org map. culture360.org was indeed the ideal platform to do this, to share and to be inspired by each other’s cultures.

culture360.org thanks all the people that contributed to the map and will soon publish all the answers online. So keep an eye out for them!

See more impressions on the art summit on our Twitter round-up article