I’m part of a weblog discussion this week on Barry Hessenius’ weblog, discussing ”policy” and ”policy formation.” Before you nod off to sleep at the idea, give it a read. As I mention in my opening salvo, I’ve come around to think that policy is the center of EVERYTHING in cultural management…at least the way I define it.
If you don’t think so, post a comment over there to nudge the conversation along.
From my experience, the arc of this conversation hasn’t evolved much in the 20 or so years I’ve watched it come and go. It is asonishingly unrefreshed and static. As a result, I wonder how useful the conversation is or whether any discussion or set of deliberations can be expected to yield any productive outcomes?
When I was President of Oregon Advocates for the Arts, we convened a statewide conversation that took place over 18 months, the result of which was a formally adopted (by a vote of the Oregon Arts Commission) “Arts Policy for Oregon.”
The outcome was published and distributed, to sit promptly on a shelf and collect dust. I wonder whether anyone involved in Oregon even knows about or remembers the effort.
We spent a lot of time, money, focus, and political capital to get this done. Organizations from throughout Oregon were involved and there was a great sense of consensus and pride in the outcome.
For all our work, however, I believe that nothing came of it, despite our working with a formal, well-defined process. One of the most remarkable aspects of the process was that it was a grassroots, statewide effort that involved artists, organizations, government, legislators, etc. The work product was presented to the Commission for dialogue and discussion (which I must admit was pale and lethargic) by the field.
One of my principal concerns with what I am reading now has to do with nomenclature. My sense is that what is being discussed is arts policy, not cultural policy. Cultural policy – which must embrace language, religion, food, the humanities, public use of lands, urban design, planning, etc., is beyond the arts community’s reach, let alone its grasp.
It seems to me that the aggregate outcomes of organizations on the ground – and how those outcomes relate to mission and vision – are products of policy goals and, as such, are implicit policy. But, in my experience, the workings of culture are organic, iterative, and sensitively responsive to seemingly unrelated shifts in the broader social ecosystem. They are profoundly human and resist constraints and direction, no matter how well-intended or well-considered.
As a purely practical matter, I don’t think that most organizations’ policy compentencies extend to effective programmatic extension of mission, let alone the crafting of policy. How many organizations’ mission statements describe in meaningful terms what they can do or are capable of doing?
I really do believe that the conversation could benefit from some reframing and from some narrowing of scope and focus.
Neill asks
“As a result, I wonder how useful the conversation is or whether any discussion or set of deliberations can be expected to yield any productive outcomes?”
My opinion – No. Everyone talks of the huge arts buildup of the past ten to twenty years that, circa 9/11, became unstable and unsustainable. The arts management infrastructure built up along with that boom and now everyone is looking around wondering how to keep his/her training program and consultancy alive. It’s easy for some of these folks to fly from one wonkfest to another, blogging when convenient, and forgetting to participate in all those eagerly anticipated blog discussions that, like their face-to-face counterparts, never go anywhere. Where among all of the pithy keynote homilies are the ideas?
I’m coming at this from the arts supporter side. Having participated in these kinds of meetings off and on, the only answer I can come up with is
a) make a nice sum of money
b) find artists you believe in
c) support them
d) stay out of their way
a) is difficult, the rest is easy by comparison
Forgive the bitterness but I think it was Hoffer who said something to the effect that a revolution has lost its vitality when people sign on for their own advancement.
Ravi Narasimhan