PUBLIC LECTURE: The Underbelly of Cultural Policy Making

This talk addresses the theme of the history, and explores the many facets of the term ‘cultural policy’, through an exploration of its historical meanings in different societies over different times. Great civilizations inevitably collapse and we are often left only with remnants of their cultural and artistic practices. How we interpret the past and how we understand the rise and fall of great cultures and the tools we use, can help inform our study of Cultural Policy. Bereson suggests that the questions raised by Shelley’s poem ‘Ozymandius’ are questions to which we might well give consideration today.

The hypothesis that Cultural Policies are not ends in themselves, but means by which states of many different political hues intervene in the practice and presentation of culture and art, will be explored. Bereson will suggest that cultural policies in themselves do not create culture but merely act as conduits of cultural practice, and that what is interesting is to explore the nature of policy and the aspirations of policy makers and the consequences, both intended and unintended, of those actions. Evidence will be provided of state sanctioned practice directly in contradiction to stated policy goals, raising the notion that essentially cultural policies can have little or no effect upon culture and cultural practices. They do, however, amongst all kinds of other policies, affect the presentation and dissemination of cultural enterprise.

The paper will essentially make its argument by way of contemporary example. Were not the blowing up of statues by the Taliban, or the relegation of statues of Lenin after the fall of the iron curtain to great cemeteries of toppled granite plots, or the renaming of streets by the South African government, the deliberate cultural policies by their host regimes? Are not today’s immigration policies in Australia and the USA potent forces which ultimately affect the cultural environment of their respective countries? Are not the practices of the City State of Singapore which work to promote racial harmony, or the economic, ethnic and language policies of Malaysia, not another form of cultural eugenics?

The distinction between cultural policy and cultural diplomacy will also be discussed, the former being the internal mechanisms of government towards its peoples, and the latter being their external visage. The question of whether academics and cultural critics are working to further such national cultural agendas by the creation of increasingly harmonised lines of enquiry which essentially legitimise the modern political discourse of certain states will be considered. For example is not the ‘World Conference’ hosted by the National Arts Council of Singapore in November 2003 of the recently formed International Federation of Arts Councils an excellent ploy to give cultural legitimacy to a nation which has not been known for its initiatives in the cultural and artistic realm? Thus are international bureaucrats and academics being employed to give legitimacy to one nation’s economic ability to construct an arts infrastructure in the period of a decade? Perhaps we make too much of the notion of cultural policies’ ability to determine arts and culture? We do know that all societies have artistic and cultural activities at their core and that these may or may not be affected by policies. Long after governments’ contemporary political whims lose their significance, cultural behavior remains as society’s legacy.

Biographical note: Associate Professor Ruth Bereson is the Director of the Arts Management Program of the University at Buffalo. She received her PhD from the Department of Arts Policy and Management, City University London.

Ruth is a former arts administrator working in diverse aspects of the field holding positions such as General Manager of New Moon Theatre Company in Queensland, Co-ordinator of Continuum ‘85, Japanese art presented in Australia in nine public and private galleries, and Logistics Manager for the fifth Festival of Pacific Arts. She is a researcher in the fields of cultural diplomacy, arts and cultural policy and arts management and has worked in Australia, Asia, Europe and the US. Her chief area of interest is the observation of the dissonance between governmental policy initiatives and their outcomes in different regimes over different times.

For more information about Ruth Bereson’s work, or Arts Management Program at UB see www.artsmanagement.buffalo.edu

ALL WELCOME. NO RESERVATION REQUIRED.