|
Funding the Fine Arts: An International Political
Economic Assessment Harry Hillman Chartrand © Nordic Theatre Studies,Vol. 14, 2002, Association of Nordic Theatre Scholars |
|
* Due to delays in publication the title has been changed from: National Superstructures for Publicly Funding the Fine Arts. Additional editing and some updating has also been conducted.
In 1986, while serving as Research Director for the
Canada Council for the Arts, I prepared, together with my Research Officer Ms.
Claire McCaughey, a research monograph entitled: The Arm's Length Principle & The Arts:
An International Perspective - Past, Present & Future. (1) In 1989, the American Council for the
Arts published the monograph in a widely read compendium entitled: Who's to Pay? for the Arts: The
International Search for Models of Support edited by M.C. Cummings Jr.
& J.
Mark Davidson Schuster. (2)
In the monograph I identified alternative modes of
public support of the fine arts in North American and Europe – both western and
eastern Europe. I also identified
trends current at that time that seemed, at least to me, to point to the future
of public support. In this article
I first set forth public funding of the fine arts within the broader context of
government fiscal policy. I then
consider the objectives of public support and summarize the four basic roles
government may play. Finally, I sum
up trends identified in 1989 and then present a new set of trends for
2001.
Public funding is a political decision. The overall strategy of a government
involves reification (making concrete
that which is abstract) of the ‘platform’ of the governing political party or
coalition subject to political ‘exigencies’. In tactical terms, government confronts
a constituency (geographic or non-geographic) that exercises sufficient
political power to elicit an increase, decrease or constant payment of public
monies, year over year, collected from a targeted set of, and/or, all
taxpayers. In logistical terms, the
government chooses which institutional mechanism - ministry, agency, foundation
or nonprofit/nonpolitical institution – should distribute public funds. The annual budgetary cycle by
which government sets its goals and decides:
(a) who or what will be taxed (and by how much);
and,
(b) who or what will benefit (and by how much) from
public revenues;
constitutes
what in macroeconomics is called ‘fiscal policy’.
One exigency that influences fiscal policy is the
economic size and importance of a given industrial sector. If large amounts of national income
and/or a large number of jobs are involved there is, all things being equal, a
greater likelihood that government will choose to support that sector. In both respects, the fine arts are
tiny. Not many jobs, relatively
speaking, are involved and little national income.
From a business economics perspective, the fine arts are
one of the last sectors in which a government would want to ‘invest’ public
money. Confirmed in studies conducted around the world, the fine arts (both live
and recorded) suffer an inherent cost disease. In the live arts it takes the same time
to rehearse and perform a Mozart concerto today as in his own time. In other industries, new technology can
substitute, complement or motivate workers increasing the productivity of labor
and allowing wages (per worker) to rise without increasing the price of a good
or service. (3) In the live arts,
substituting technology for artistic labor is usually not possible and usually
not desirable.
In effect, the live arts are a 'non-productive' industry
in which an income gap opens up between what can be reasonably charged at the
box office and the rising costs of production. (4) One factor filling this gap has been
artistic labor that traditionally has worked for less than other professions
with similar years of 'tertiary' education and training. Low wages have been offset, somewhat, by
what economists call 'psychic income', i.e. love of the
job.
Non-artistic personnel, however, including
administrators, backstage artisans, office workers, technicians and other
support personnel must be paid competitive wages. Eventually ticket prices increase unless
the gap can otherwise be filled. In
the past, princes, popes and prelates filled the gap, so-called 'patrons of the
arts' who today have become government and the philanthropic
sector.
Put in the darkest terms, to fiscal conservatives the
fine arts are a ‘black hole’ into which public monies endlessly flow simply to
stabilize an inherently unproductive industry – unproductive in terms of
traditional economic growth and development. It needs to be pointed out, however,
that public funding of research and development (R&D) in the science
industries is accepted as an ‘investment’ by most governments even though there
are no ‘empirical’ studies proving that publicly and privately funded R&D
actually lead to economic growth. There are, however, a number of indirect economic arguments justifying public funding of the fine arts. In essence, these deal with: the contribution of the fine arts to other sectors of the arts industry, e.g., the amateur, applied, entertainment or heritage arts; and, in turn,
the contribution of Art, as
an entire and distinct industrial sector of a knowledge-based economy, to the
competitiveness of nations. (5)
The ‘political’ constituency for the fine arts consists
of the audience for and producers of the fine arts. On the demand-side the audience tends,
on average, to be ‘elite’ and ‘effeminate’, that is, it is highly educated,
financially well off and slightly more female. On the supply-side, producers tend, on
average, to be ‘elite’, highly educated, financially not well off and slightly
more male.
On the demand-side, a financially affluent, numerically
small and predominantly female audience presents political problems for publicly
funding the fine arts. Is it
welfare for the rich? Is it
politically productive to subsidize upper-class women rather than working-class
women, particularly in predominantly ‘jock’ or male sports-oriented
cultures?
On the supply-side, the fact that fine arts are led by
an ‘avant-garde’ that is ruthlessly critical of the ‘Powers-that-Be’ (6) also
presents political problems. Since
the middle of the 19th century and birth of the ‘arts-for-art’s sake’
movement, social criticism has been an established part of the creative arts
community. (7) Such ‘opposition’, including ‘egalitarian realism’ in the visual
arts, is not viewed kindly by the typical government of the day. (8) Why should government fund its
critics?
In welfare economics, the economic sub-discipline
concerned with the balance between equity and efficiency, fine art can be
considered a ‘merit good’. A merit
good is a good or service whose consumption or production is encouraged on the
basis of non-market value judgments.
It is the opposite of a demerit good or service, e.g. smoking
or, at the extreme, criminal activity.
As with ‘public goods’, of which merit goods are a subset, the private
market cannot profitably provide the quantity or quality that a society
considers adequate.
The definition of what constitutes a merit good, at any
point in time, is dependent on social and historical circumstances and is often
controversial. Today, for example,
education is often described as a merit good because it not only improves an
individual’s career prospects but also makes a person a better citizen.
To individual patrons and many within the corporate
sector and government, the fine arts are considered a merit good. The merit
audience is as old as the fine arts themselves. The aristocratic or ecclesiastic patron
of past centuries funded the fine arts.
Today, through grants and donations, public and private sector patrons
support the fine arts to insure a larger supply is available and accessible to
the general public than what the market is able to provide. This tradition of "multiple funding
sources", i.e., box office revenue combined with public and private donations
also serves as a guarantee of the independence of the fine arts.
For whatever reasons – merit or utilitarian – government
in publicly funding the fine arts targets one or more of three objectives:
·
to promote the process of
creativity and/or excellence (as defined by the arts community itself);
·
to foster production of works
of a specific style, theme or purpose, e.g. socialist realism or ‘commercial’
success; or,
·
to support specific
producers, e.g., a budgetary ‘line item’ appropriation for ‘flagship’ arts
institutions.
To achieve its objectives, government may erect one or
more of four alternative national superstructures acting
as:
·
the
Facilitator;
·
the
Patron;
·
the Architect; and/or,
·
the Engineer.
The Facilitator State funds the fine arts through ‘tax
expenditures’, i.e. taxes foregone or forgiven. Government can choose not to tax
certain types of income and/or expenditures made by citizens because related
activities are considered merit goods.
A charitable donation made by an individual or an organization is an
expenditure example. In this case
government mandates that a donation to a ‘recognized’ charity should, in whole
or in part, be subtracted from income tax due to the government. The exemption from income taxation of
copyright income by resident artists in the Republic of Ireland (Eire) is an
income example relevant to the arts.
The Facilitator supports diversity rather than specific
types or styles of art. Specific
standards are not supported because the Facilitator relies on the preferences
and tastes of corporate, foundation and individual donors. The policy dynamic of
the Facilitator State is random in
that public funding reflects the changing tastes of private donors. In the Facilitator State the economic
status of the artist and fine arts enterprise depends on a combination of box
office appeal and the changing tastes and financial health of private
patrons.
The strength of the Facilitator lies in the diversity of
funding sources. Individuals, corporations and foundations choose which art,
artists and arts organizations to support.
The Facilitator also has weaknesses. First, standards of excellence are not
supported, and the State has no ability to target activities of national
importance. Second, the valuation of private donations in kind, for example, a
painting donated to a museum or art gallery, can be problematic. Third, the
Facilitator cannot necessarily restrict benefits to the domestic arts community,
e.g. reconstruction of the Versailles palace was funded in large part through
tax-exempt contributions made by American taxpayers to the Versailles Foundation
in New York City. (9) Fourth, it is very
difficult to calculate the cost of tax credits and expenditures to government.
(10)
In the United States, government plays the role of
Facilitator, promoting the fine arts through tax expenditures channeled by
donors. The Facilitator role has its origins in three American traditions: the
separation of church and state, the competitive market economy, and private
philanthropy, which before and after imposition of income tax has represented
the single most important source of support for the fine arts.
The Patron State funds the fine arts through arm's
length arts councils. The government determines how much total support to
provide, but not which organizations or artists should receive that support. A
council is usually composed of a board of trustees appointed by the government.
Having been appointed, however, trustees fulfill their grant-giving duties
independent of the day-to-day interests of the party in power, much like the
trustee of a blind trust. Granting
decisions are generally made on the advice of professional artists working
through a system of peer evaluation.
The arts council supports creativity with the objective
of promoting standards of professional artistic excellence. The policy dynamic
of the Patron State is evolutionary,
responding to changing forms and styles of art as expressed by the artistic
community. The economic status of the artist and the artistic enterprise depends
on a combination of box office appeal, the taste and preferences of private
donors, and grants received from arm's length arts
councils.
The very strength of the arm's length arts council is
often perceived, however, as its principal weakness. Fostering artistic excellence is often
seen as promoting elitism, with respect to both type of artwork produced and
audience served. Support of
artistic excellence may result in art that is not accessible to, or appreciated
by, the general public, or by its democratically elected representatives. In most Patron States there are
recurring controversies in which politicians, reflecting popular opinion,
express anger and outrage at support for activities that are, for example,
perceived as politically unacceptable, pornographic or appealing only to a
wealthy minority.
With an arm's length council, however, politicians can
claim neither credit for artistic success nor responsibility for failure. Great Britain is the prime example of
the Patron State. Government
adopted the role of Patron during World War II by creating the Committee for
Education, Music and Art for raising morale during the Blitz. (11) After the war
it created the Arts Council of Great Britain and its sister agencies in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The role of Patron evolved out of
traditional arts patronage by the English aristocracy. The government continues
the Patron role, even though various task forces and committees of Parliament
have recommended incentives to enhance charitable giving. (12)
The Architect State funds the fine arts through a
Ministry or Department of Culture.
Bureaucrats, in effect, make grants. The Architect tends to support the fine
arts as part of its general social welfare objectives based on an historic
tradition in western European culture since the fall of Rome – practised first
by the Church in praise of God then in praise of the Monarch and/or Aristocracy
and, today, in praise of the citizen or the culture of the specific
nation-state. Since the arrival of
‘democratic’ government, the Architect role has evolved from ministries of
church affairs and culture to ministries of education and culture to a separate
and distinct ministry of culture.
The
Architect tends to support art that meets ‘established’ rather than
‘professional’ standards of artistic excellence. The policy dynamic of the
Architect is revolutionary. Inertia can result in the entrenchment
of established standards developed at a particular point in time leading to
stagnation of contemporary creativity, as has been observed with respect to
France. (13)
The economic status of artists in the Architect State is
determined by membership in official artists' unions. Once an artist gains
membership in such a union, he or she becomes, in effect, a civil servant and
enjoys some form of income security. The economic status of artistic enterprise
is determined almost exclusively by direct government funding. The box office
and private donations play a small role in determining their financial
status.
The strength of the Architect role is the fact that
artists and arts organizations are relieved from depending on popular success at
the box office, resulting in what has been called an "affluence gap". (14)
Moreover the status of the artist is explicitly recognized in social assistance
policies. The weakness of the
Architect is that long-term, guaranteed direct funding can result in creative
stagnation.
For example, since before World War II the government of
the Netherlands has played the role of Architect. The government funded numerous
literary, media, performing and visual arts institutions as regular budget
items. Furthermore, the government provided a guaranteed annual income to visual
artists. (15) Effectively, the
government set minimum salary and working conditions. The "Tomato Revolution" of the 1970s, in
which the audience protested the content of Dutch theater, demonstrates the
revolutionary policy dynamic that can result from the Architect
role.
[D]issatisfaction expressed in poor attendance, position
papers, meetings and ultimately tomatoes, smoke bombs and invectives, gave
government a clear indication that there was a serious gulf between the public's
perception of need and what tax money was purchasing . . . . Now in a revival of
one of the world's fundamental rites, the death/ castration of the parent
cleared the way for the child's assumption of power and prestige. Mythic
relationships prevail even in government support system!
(16)
The Engineer State owns all means of artistic
production. The Engineer officially
supports only art meeting political standards of excellence. Funding decisions are made by political
commissars intent on furthering political education or re-education, not
artistic excellence. The policy dynamic of the Engineer State is revisionary with funding decisions
constantly revised to reflect an ever-changing party line.
The economic status of the artist is determined by
membership in official Party-approved artists' unions. Anyone who does not
belong to such a union is, by definition, not an artist. All artistic
enterprises are state-owned and operated; that is, all artistic means of
production belong to the State.
The Engineer role is attractive to a "totalist" regime
because it focuses the creative energies of artists toward attainment of
official political goals. There are
several weaknesses associated with the Engineer role. First, Art is subservient
to political objectives. Second, the creative energy of artists cannot be
completely channeled. Repressed
artistic ambition results in an "underground" subversive of either party
aesthetics or capitalist values, i.e. a "counterculture". (17) Third,
counter-intuitive results can occur.
For example in the old Soviet Union, it was works of the Czarist period
that received critical acclaim in the West, not the works of socialist realism.
The exemplar of the Engineer role was the old Soviet
Union. Between the Communist
Revolution in 1918 and 1932 the Soviet government played the role of Architect.
The "People's Commissar of Enlightenment" viewed Art as an integral part of
human development. While the
workers were considered owners of the "artistic means of production" they were
not considered ready to operate them.
First they needed to be educated through access to the capitalist art of
the past after which true proletarian art would emerge. Censorship and control over content were
relatively rare. (18)
In 1932, with the second Five Year Plan implemented by
Joseph Stalin, the costs of industrialization and the need to develop a new
socialist society combined to change the role of the State from Architect to
Engineer:
This second page in socialist cultural policy saw the
rise of the doctrine known as Socialist Realism . . . . [that] downplays the
notion that the "means of production" in the arts belongs to the masses,
substituting the idea that it is the final product, the artwork itself, that is
the property of the proletariat. Under this scheme, the social responsibility of
the artist lies in "satisfying" the "owners," that is producing works that can
be immediately accepted by the masses. (19)
Henceforth all art produced in the Soviet Union had to
be socialist realist, that is, realist in form and socialist in content.
Artistic activity was organized into "creative unions" to monitor new works and
ensure conformity with the aesthetic principles of the Communist Party. Artists who produced work that did not
conform were expelled and no longer recognized as artists. A form of author’s rights derived from
the Civil Code tradition was operative but granted only a one-time payment to a
creator who did, however, retain ongoing moral rights. There were no subsequent royalty
payments because the work belonged to the people, i.e. it entered the public
domain.
In summary and expressed as ‘pure types’, Western
Europe, the British Commonwealth, the United States and the former Soviet Union
and its satellites evolved very different superstructures for publicly funding
the fine arts in the post-World War II period. In the United States, the tradition of
separation of church and state, free market competition and private philanthropy
led the USA to adopt the role of Facilitator. In Britain and Commonwealth
countries, government distanced the arts from the State, preferring to apply the
arm's length principle through autonomous arts councils acting as the Patron.
The European tradition is Architect reflecting the role played by absolute
monarchs and the medieval Church.
An exception to the Architect role in Western Europe was the former West
Germany where the constitution forbade federal involvement in cultural affairs
due to the Nazi experience. After
unification, however, a national Ministry of Culture was created, allbeit with
less power and influence than in other western European countries such as
France. A tradition of Czarist
"autocracy" together with Communist ideology led the Soviet Union to adopt the
role of Engineer – owner of all artistic means of
production.
In 1989, I identified three trends in publicly funding
the fine arts:
·
convergence;
·
lotteries;
and,
·
commercial realism.
In summary, the Facilitator USA appended a Patron-style
structure, the National Endowment for the Arts in 1965 and flowing directly from
creation of the NEA, a nationwide system of State Arts Councils soon arose. This system of ‘public’ arts councils
eventually spawned a parallel set of nonprofit Arts Alliances in each state
dedicated to ‘lobbying’ government on behave of the fine arts because the arts
councils themselves are legally restricted from lobbying
government.
Since the early 1980’s and the Reagan Administration,
the NEA has lived under continuing and constant threat that Congress will cut
off its funding. Religious, right
and conservative forces view the NEA as a center of ‘liberalism’ and, in effect,
call for the separation of Art and the State.
Patron states of the British Commonwealth promoted more
Facilitator-like tax policies and adopted an increasingly Architect-style as in:
·
Australia where the Sydney
Opera received a budgetary line item separate from the Australia Council;
·
Britain where the Thatcher
regime was in the process of ‘regionalizing’ the Arts Council of Great Britain
in response to the perceived opposition of the fine arts community to the
Conservative agenda; and,
·
Canada where the federal
government pressured (unsuccessfully) the Canada Council to refuse grants to
artists who supported Quebec separatism and where a lottery agreement with the
Canadian provinces provided public monies allowing the federal government to
make direct grants to the fine arts community independent of the Canada
Council.
Architect states were adopting Facilitator-style tax
policies to encourage private donations and, in some cases, constructing
Patron-style structures to provide grants at arm’s length from the
government. In Engineer states
behind the ‘Iron Curtain’ and, to a lesser extent, the ‘Bamboo Curtain’, it was
Western popular cultural products - Hollywood movies and rock music - not the
works of socialist realism that were demanded by the masses. When a Communist Party finally accepted
that it could not stop the flow of ‘decadent Western art’ it would introduce a
so-called ‘garbage tax’ levied on attendees of ‘pop’ events, the proceeds of
which were targeted to publicly fund the ‘high’ arts including socialist realism
and classical pre-revolutionary fine arts in an effort to bring culture to the
proletariat.
Public funding of the fine arts was inhibited by, what
later in the 1990s became known as the ‘deficit and debt’ dilemma of governments
around the world. At the same
time in Canada and the USA (later in the UK) a new source of public revenue was
emerging - legalized gambling especially ticket lotteries. In effect, these new funds were used to
finance an Architect role for government.
In Canada, lottery funds permitted the Government of
Canada to initiate an ongoing program of operating and project grants in support
of the fine arts. Funding was
funneled through a department of government, not the arm’s length Canada
Council. At the provincial level,
lottery funds were used to create new granting councils but ones focused on
‘community arts’.
In the USA, it was at the State level that the impact of
lottery revenues had an effect on the fine arts. The State of Massachusetts is a case in
point. At first a state lottery was
created and dedicated to fund the ‘arts’.
However, the monies were used to create a new grant-giving arts council
operating independently of the existing State Arts Council created after the
establishment of the federal NEA.
Funding from the new council went to support community-based amateur (or
semi-professional) arts activities.
Revenues from the ‘arts lottery’ were so large that eventually funds were
‘capped’ and the excess diverted to support other activities far removed from
Art – roads, sewers, et al.
Eventually the two councils were merged and mandated to support both
professional and geographic community-based amateur arts activities.
The Engineer State of the old Second World owned all
means of artistic production and consciously constructed the fine arts industry
according to its vision. Each
nation state, however, irrespective of ideology, owns and regulates (subject to
international treaty) the electromagnetic spectrum and related media of
communications including broadcast licensing within its borders. Each consciously plans and decides how
this resource will be allocated to further the national purpose. Second, prior
to creation of the World Trade Organization in 1994, the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and various other treaties and covenants, e.g. on
pornography, recognized that a country could control the flow of cultural
materials in and out of its borders.
In Islamic countries, the GATT ‘morals clause’ was used
to stop the flow of much Western media with its alien portrayal of women. In France and most of Western Europe,
‘cultural filtering’ took the form of quotas on movie screens before the Second
World War and television after the war to assure ‘national content’ was
available to citizens. Put another
way, filtering was intended to control the flood of American cultural content
that was, and is, successful at the box office and on radio and television in
all countries.
The success of American product reflects two facts. First, the American domestic market is
large enough to usually recoup the cost of high production standards associated
with Hollywood film, American TV programs and recorded music. Second, the product is then sold in
foreign markets, in effect, at a fee per viewer rather than the actual
production cost of the work itself, e.g. a Hollywood film. This pricing mechanism makes it
difficult for local producers to compete.
Other than the United States, only one other country regularly recovers
production costs in its domestic market - India. Producers in smaller countries cannot
regularly recover high production costs for media art entertainment
programming.
Concern about ‘foreign’, that is American content, was
not just cultural. The second
largest net export of the United States, after defense products, is reportedly
media arts programming – film, radio, sound recordings and television
programming. Some countries were,
by 1989, beginning to believe that a commercially viable media arts
entertainment industry was required for financial as well as cultural
reasons.
As in the case of copyright and intellectual property in
general, through legislation and regulation the State can create a marketplace
and associated profit-making opportunities. The emergence of ‘commercial
realism’ has significant implications for publicly funding the fine arts. As a
political constituency the media entertainment industry is much better organized
and funded than the fine arts.
It also tends to be less controversial because ‘national’ rather than
‘local’ standards apply to exhibition or performance. It also promises to deliver
profits and jobs. The result:
public funding increasingly was increasingly being made in 1989 to support
‘commercial realism’ rather than the ‘high culture’ values embodied in the fine
arts.
In 2001, I identify four new trends in direct public
funding of the fine arts:
·
Cultural Sovereignty &
Supra-National Cultural Affairs
·
Equifinality, Egalitarianism
& Re-Definition
·
Market Realism, WIPO, WTO
& WWW
·
Subsidiarity, The Second Wave
& The Little Sisters
Cultural
Sovereignty & Supra-National Cultural Affairs
With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the
Soviet Union, a new post-modern era began.
Almost immediately, the search started for the pattern of this new,
unexpected era. One strand in the
emerging fabric is globalization of the economy. This is evidenced by international trade
statistics. It is also demonstrated
by the impending entry of the People’s Republic of China into the World Trade
Organization, the embodiment of the triumph of markets over
Marx.
On the other hand, some argue that global conflict based
on ideology has been replaced by the clash of cultures. (20) It will be where
the "tectonic plates" of different cultures meet that conflicts will erupt. The
recent tragedy in the Balkans between Catholic Croats, Orthodox Serbs and Moslem
Bosnians who share a common language (Serbo-Croatian) and a common ethnic
background (Southern Slavs) demonstrates that it takes only one significant
cultural difference (in this case, religion) to lead to genocide, ethnic
cleansing and cultural vandalism.
Yet more subtle and simmering differences and disputes,
long suppressed by allies and adversaries in a coordinated bi-polar global
struggle are re-surfacing after a fifty-year quiescence and will continue to do
so with increasing frequency. Such
differences can be summed up as the effort to establish, maintain and/or enhance
‘cultural sovereignty’. By 1989 the
term was current in Canada having been introduced into the public policy
vocabulary during the 1970s at the height of the ongoing struggle for Quebec
independence. Since that time, and
with the collapse of the ‘Communist threat’, it has reached the global
diplomatic stage.
In summary, cultural sovereignty involves the struggle
to be heard at home and abroad above the booming voice of the American
entertainment industry that has succeeded in penetrating the cultural
marketplace of every nation on earth.
The one remaining superpower is thus also a global cultural colossus
spanning East, West, North and South.
Fuelled in part by the peculiar pricing methods used in the entertainment
arts, i.e. a rate per viewer rather than the production cost of the work itself,
the high production standards embodied in American entertainment arts
programming have set the standards demanded by audiences around the world. As audience dollars flow to ‘American’
programs they flow out of the country leaving the local arts industry poorer –
financially and culturally in that local production is not
encouraged.
The battle for cultural sovereignty is being fought on
two fronts. The first is the
economic front where Canada, France and Sweden, among others, are pressing for
the World Trade Organization to exempt ‘cultural goods and services’ from free
trade restrictions. These
countries have created a web of international film and television co-production
agreements intended to generate the high production standards demanded by
audiences at home, abroad and especially in the American marketplace
itself. At home, these countries,
together with the European Union, are actively engaged in manipulation of the
regulatory environment to ‘engineer’ a financially viable entertainment arts
industry through control of the electromagnetic spectrum and other
communications media. The
announcement (December 19, 2000) by the European Investment Bank that it would
make $445 million US available to help European media companies compete against
Hollywood and Silicon Valley is an example. In these efforts, the Canadian
experience has served to lead the way.
The second front of the cultural sovereignty campaign is
international institution building as part of the emerging field of what I call
‘supra-national cultural policy’. Three strands are currently
visible.
First, flowing
out of initiatives of UNESCO, of which the United States is not a member, the
Government of Canada hosted an International Meeting on Cultural
Policy, June 29-30, 1998 in Ottawa. Twenty countries participated The United States, however, was
restricted to sending an observer because the meeting involved national
ministers of culture. The United
States has no such minister.
The meeting resulted in the formation of a new international institution:
the International Alliance of Culture Ministers (IACM).
Second, at the
time of the initial meeting of ministers of culture (June 1998) a parallel
non-governmental meeting of cultural representatives from 30 countries was
hosted by the Canadian Conference of the Arts in Ottawa: At Home in the World: An International Forum
on Culture and Cooperation. The
conference concluded that each nation must have the ability, unfettered by
international trade agreements, to take measures and adopt policies that
maintain and enhance its culture. The conference resulted in the formation of
the World Coalition for Cultural Diversity that in November of 1999 was renamed
the International Network for Cultural Diversity (INCD). As of today more than 160 organizations
from almost 30 countries on every continent have signed the declaration of
principles of the Network recognizing the need to promote cultural diversity and
maintain the ability of sovereign nations to support their cultures in the face
of globalization.
On March 8 2002, INCD released its first draft of a Convention on Cultural Diversity to its
members in 52 countries. Prepared
by Canadian trade lawyer Steven Shrybman, the Convention translates the
principles and concepts endorsed at meetings held in Santorini, Greece in 2000
and Lucerne, Switzerland in 2001 into the terms of a binding international
treaty on cultural diversity. In addition to a preamble, it sets out 20
substantive provisions dealing with the key elements of such a treaty, including
rules concerning trade in cultural goods, and investment in providing cultural
services. The Convention stresses
the rights and responsibilities of governments to implement measures designed to
foster diversity and creativity while securing the rights of all creators and
citizens to freedom of expression and access to the full range of cultural
activities.
Third, the
Canada Council for the Arts in Ottawa hosted the World Summit on the Arts and Culture
in December 2000. Some 300 delegates representing arts and
culture funding organizations from 60 countries, which included the US National
Endowment for the Arts, agreed to form an international federation to advance
art and artists around the globe.
In addition to the creation of a new network, major subjects discussed at
the conference included:
·
the growth and
diversification of the arts council model and the means of strengthening arts
councils as stable, effective democratic agencies for support of the arts;
·
cultural diversity as a core
value in modern societies, and the means of supporting and fostering indigenous
cultures and cultural diversity;
·
making connections between
the arts and new audiences, especially young people;
·
the role of the artist and
support for creativity in today's societies;
·
the challenges to copyright
from new technological developments; and
·
encouragement of private
sector support for the arts.
The nonprofit organization is open to agencies that
support the development of arts and culture, either through funding or
advocacy.
Taken together developments on the global economic and
diplomatic fronts have placed Art near center stage of international
affairs. To the degree that
even the United States is involved at the arts council and nonprofit level one
can say that a global coalition for the fine arts now exists. How effective this coalition will be in
furthering the domestic position of the fine arts in individual countries
remains problematic.
Equifinality,
Egalitarianism & Re-Definition
While cultural sovereignty and development of foreign
cultural affairs has raised the profile of Art and Culture on the international
stage other forces have altered the relationship of the fine arts and
government.
There is a trend in public funding of the fine arts
towards equifinality that can be
defined either as:
·
a condition in which
different initial conditions lead to similar effects, or,
·
a behavior that is oriented
towards reaching certain final conditions or states regardless of from where it
started.
Since the end of World War II the global community has
been struggling with the lessons of total war fought by the Nazi regime. In Nazi Germany, all modern means of
artistic expression – from dance, music, theatre and painting to radio and
television to motion pictures - were harnessed in the service of a cause so evil
that color film of the Nuremberg Rallies has never been released to the public
by the American Government, which holds negatives and positives in protective
custody. What in scratchy
black and white is ancient history is, to the modern eye, a symbol of the power
of Art to serve evil in living color.
Art is not summum bonum, any
more than physics.
Even governments in the English-speaking world that had,
since Cromwell and the Puritans in the 17th century, adopted a strict
hands-off Facilitator role, began to publicly fund the fine arts through arm’s
length arts councils – the UK 1946, Canada 1957, New Zealand 1964, the USA 1965
and Australia 1975. In all cases
the arm’s length arts council quickly became the focus of the fine arts
constituency of each country.
Meanwhile governments of Western Europe (and their
former colonial possessions) continued to play the role of Architect extending a
tradition of direct State support initiated by the absolute monarchs of the
18th century Enlightenment.
Behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains the State played the Engineer role
through ownership of all means of artistic production in the name of the
proletarian masses.
The end of the Cold War and the fall of Communism,
together with the trend towards a convergence of roles, have led towards
equifinality in most countries.
Most Patron states have created de
facto ministries of culture, e.g. Heritage Canada. Most have adjusted their tax systems to
encourage corporate and private giving to charitable causes including the fine
arts, and thereby adopted the Facilitator role. Most Architect states have similarly
adjusted their tax systems to play a Facilitator role and many have created
actual or de facto arm’s length arts
councils to serve as the focus for the fine arts constituency and thereby have
adopted the Patron role. And with
respect to the media entertainment arts, Facilitator, Patron and Architect
states have increasingly adopted the Engineer role striving to create a
financially viable industry often in collaboration with foreign allies.
There is an inherent tension, particularly in the West,
between what can be called elite and egalitarian values (21). Art, specifically fine art, is consonant
with Carl Jung’s observation: Nature is aristocratic and esoteric. Society, however, is increasingly
egalitarian. This is true not only
in social and economic terms but also in ‘political correctness’ and the
‘dumbing down’ of cultural life in many Western nation states. Furthermore there is a general trend in
government away from the traditional politics of elite accommodation towards the
politics of polls. (22) In the process the ‘elite’ and ‘contrarian’ nature of
the fine arts constituency has led to a decline in its political power and
financial resources. The decline is
evident across the English-speaking world.
In 1990, Margaret Thatcher ‘regionalized’ the Arts Council of Great
Britain thereby taming a center of opposition to her policies.
In 1992, during the presidential primary campaign in New
Hampshire, American President Bush fired the chair of the National Endowment for
the Arts, John Fromeyer. Congress
has progressively earmarked more and more of the NEA’s appropriation to State
Arts Councils thereby limiting the freedom of the Endowment to act as a national
arts council. Furthermore, in response to Congressional pressure over
Maplethorpe’s homoerotic photographs and Serrano’s ‘Piss Christ’, the National
Endowment also introduced a ‘morals clause’ for all grants to artists and arts
organizations.
In 1994, the Canada Council came within one vote in the
Senate of Canada of being merged with the Social Sciences & Humanities
Research Council and the International Cultural Relations Bureau of the
Department of External Affairs & International Trade Canada. The Canada Council has also capitulated,
despite vigorous opposition in the 1970s and ‘80s, and adopted the federal
government’s ‘word mark’ (a red maple leaf with the phrase ‘Government of
Canada’ written below and attached to all official Council
documents).
With respect to arm’s length arts councils, the key
political question was raised during an independent Congressional review of the
National Endowment for the Arts in 1990 (23): Is it the National Endowment for
the ‘Arts’ (as in a political constituency) or ‘Americans’ (as in for all
citizens)?
Without a clear definition of the arts industry, we are
left with an amorphous, ill-defined sector of society struggling for
self-identity and credibility. This
leaves the arts unable to effectively compete in the court of public opinion
with clearly defined economic 'sectors' such as business, education, health,
science and technology. Elsewhere I
have defined the nonprofit ‘arts-for-art’s-sake’ or fine arts within a wider
concept of such an ‘Arts Industry’ made up of the amateur, applied,
entertainment, fine and heritage arts. (24) There I proposed that the arts
industry includes all profit, nonprofit and public enterprise and institutions
including incorporated and unincorporated enterprise as well as self-employed
artists that:
(a) use one or more of the arts as a primary factor of
production, e.g. advertising, fashion, industrial and product
design;
(b) use one or more of the arts as a tied-good in
consumption, e.g. home entertainment hardware, magazines and newspapers;
and/or,
(c) produce one or more of the arts as their final
output, i.e. create, produce, distribute and/or conserve goods and services in
the literary, media, performing, visual and/or heritage
arts.
The term 'tied-good' requires further explanation. An
example is the old 'punch card' computer.
The computer could not operate without such cards, which, technically,
were an output of the pulp, paper and publishing industries, sequentially. Similarly, there can be no mass market
for home entertainment hardware, e.g. TVs and VCRs, unless there is a market for
audio-video software, and vice-versa.
These are tied-goods in consumption; they are like hand and glove. One would not exclude from an
examination of the automobile industry the tires on which automobiles depend.
Why would one examine the arts without including the devices specifically
designed to ‘media extend’ the arts?
Furthermore, as noted at the beginning of this article under Fiscal
Argument, one exigency that influences government willingness to support any
industrial sector is the economic size and importance of that sector. Failing to include all parts of the arts
industry reduces the political importance of the arts, and therefore the
willingness of government to support key sub-sectors such as the fine
arts.
Furthermore, it is likely that the home entertainment
center is the third most expensive consumer durable purchased by the average
citizen, after his or her house and car.
Similarly, private collections of books, photographs, records, tapes and
works in the visual arts (including black velveteen Elvis') are present in every
home and represent an enormous repository of cultural and financial
wealth.
Using this inclusive definition, I have estimated that
the American arts industry accounts for at least 6% and at most 8.5% of the
Gross National Product, i.e. all goods and services consumed in America but not
necessarily produced there. It
ranks at most 6th and at least 7th among the ten major sectors of the American
economy recognized by the Department of Commerce including, in descending order
by income size: manufacturing; services; finance; government; transportation and
utilities; retail trade; wholesale trade; construction; agriculture, forestry
and fishing; and, mining.
The arts industry also ranks at most 5th after medical,
educational and service industries, and at least 10th after petroleum products
among 77 private sector industries identified in the Input/Output Matrix for the
American economy. By the same measuring rod, it also contributes at least 13%
and at most 45% of the American trade deficit with the rest of the world.
(25)
Market Realism,
WIPO, WTO & WWW
The triumph of the market over Marx is embodied in the
World Trade Organization (WTO) created in 1994. For the first time in history the
nations of the world have agreed upon the rules of international trade and have
accepted the market as the appropriate mechanism. The treaty establishing the WTO is
called, in diplomatic terms, a ‘single undertaking’, that is, it is a set of
legal instruments constituting a single package permitting only a single
signature without reservation. To
join the WTO, a nation must accept all agreements in the
package.
WTO continues – at present and with increasing criticism
from the USA – GATT’s ‘traditional’ exemptions for cultural goods and services,
e.g. the ‘morals clause’ and film and television in quotas. Thus GATT distinguishes commercial
cultural goods and services from other goods and services. There are four provisions of the GATT
permitting such a distinction.
First, quotas are protectionist measures, which run
contrary to free circulation of goods as defined by Article XI of the 1947 GATT
agreement. However, an exemption
was granted with respect to cinema exhibition. Article III makes reference to the
exemption, while Article IV is entirely devoted to special arrangements for
fixing showing quotas in the film industry. This provision represented a compromise
between the USA film industry and Europeans keen to maintain quotas established
between 1919 and 1939. In 1947, to
the USA, such quotas were the least harmful of possible
restrictions.
Second, Article XII of GATT allows temporary restrictive
measures to safeguard balance of payments.
In the case of cultural goods and services, Canada and the EU are in a
serious and persistent trade deficit with the United States in entertainment
programming. Restrictions must,
however, be preceded by advance warning to other GATT partners. A decision to invoke this exemption
would necessarily be a political decision.
Third, Article XX sub (a) and (f) similarly allow for
certain exceptions. In the case of
sub (a), restrictions are permitted to protect public morals. To the degree that public morals form a
distinct part of national culture, then to that degree foreign cultural goods
threatening public morals can be restricted. The most obvious example is Islamic
societies that hold fundamentally different values from the West concerning
portrayal of the relationship between men and women. But continuing controversy in many
Western states concerning sex and violence in books, film, video and TV
programming has traditionally been used to justify restrictions on cultural
goods imported from more ‘liberal’ countries.
In the case of sub (f), exceptions to trade
liberalization are allowed for the protection of artistic, historic and
archaeological treasures. In
principle, this provision could be extended to the cultural industries to
provide protection of cultural identity.
Similarly, Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome, which created the European
Union, exempts cultural treasurers from the general prohibition on quantitative
restrictions on trade. This
exemption is, however, the subject of ongoing controversy as the ‘Single Market’
matures.
Fourth, Article XXI of GATT provides specific exceptions
when ‘national security’ is involved.
While formally limited to atomic materials, arms trade and emergency
actions, the concept of ‘national security’ is explicitly used by the USA to
restrict foreign ownership of broadcasting. A former Prime Minister of Canada also
publicly equated ‘cultural sovereignty’ with national security. In this regard, under the Canada/USA and
the North American Free Trade Agreements, public subsidies and other support to
the cultural industries existing at the time of signing, are exempt from the
general principle of freer trade.
Unlike its predecessor, however, the WTO has the power
through formal ‘dispute settlement mechanisms’ to enforce its rules and findings
of unfair trade practices. This
means that interpretation of treaty provisions is now subject to adjudication
and revision unless the WTO chooses to explicitly exempt traditional ‘cultural’
protections. The WTO also, for the
first time, regulates international trade in intellectual property or ‘IP’
(Trade Aspects of Intellectual Property – TRIPS) unlike the original GATT. Previously IP was subject to separate
non-trade-related international IP conventions such as the 1886 Berne Copyright
Convention administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
created out of UNESCO in 1965. WIPO
recently established dispute settlement mechanisms concerning ‘domain names’ and
‘cyber squatting’ on the Internet or World-Wide Web (WWW).
At the same time that the Government of Canada has been
beating the drum of cultural sovereignty it has engaged in fostering development
of ‘Hollywood North’, i.e. Canada.
A number of forces are at play: the low Canadian dollar; employment tax
benefits; and, investment through special ‘film and television production funds’
bankrolled out of cable, satellite and specialty television and radio channel
licensing fees levied by the Government of Canada. The ‘market reality’ is that
the United States is a near monopsonist in consumption of commercial
cultural products. Except for
India, the U.S. is the only economy large enough to break-even in its domestic
market selling products incorporating world-class production values, e.g. the
evolving special effects embodied in The Star Wars Trilogies. Other countries simply must sell in the
U.S. market to break-even on comparable products. The result is production of what are
called ‘American cultural clones’, not indigenous art and culture. The U.S. objects to ‘subsidization’ of
cultural products targeted at the American market and argues that WTO cultural
exemptions should be set aside.
Subsidies to the commercial culture will continually be
threatened by the USA. However,
under GATT countervailing measures are possible only if there is proof of injury
to USA producers. In this regard in
2000, the Hollywood film industry lobbied Washington about Hollywood North and
the resulting job losses in California.
On the surface these developments do not seem favorable
to the domestic nonprofit fine arts of any WTO member country. At bottom, however, there are some
silver linings. American scrutiny
of commercial subsidies should lead other WTO member states, in their pursuit of
cultural sovereignty, away from support to the commercial sector and towards the
nonprofit arts. As the root from
which the arts industry in any country grows, the fine arts can serve to nurture
financially valuable cultural properties like Abba, Armani, the Beatles, Agatha
Christie and Star Wars. The fine
arts provide the standards of excellence and the talent pool to increase or
decrease the odds of national success.
Second, behind the scenes (the etymological meaning of
the English word ‘obscene’) lurks a new nervous system encircling the planet
Earth – the World Wide Web, the WWW or ‘the Web’, for short. In less than a decade,
the Web has affected economics, education, entertainment, health care,
information, news and the nature of work.
In the current decade, almost every mechanical and electronic device will
be ‘plugged’ into the Web. From
automobiles, ships, trucks and trains to home air conditioning, computer,
heating, lighting and security systems to microwave ovens, refrigerators,
toasters, toilets and TV sets: all and many more on the drawing board will be
attached to the emerging global nervous system called the Web.
Distribution costs using the WWW are virtually
zero. The ability of national
cultures to get their artistic products to their own and foreign citizens should
be greatly enhanced as the web matures.
The implications of the WWW for the fine arts cannot be fully explored in
this article. The words of noted
copyright lawyer, David Nimmers, hint, however, at its
potential: New forms of
interactive authorship.
Getting even further "out there," the question arises
whether the Internet will facilitate new forms of authorship that were not
hitherto possible For instance, a recent SIGGRAPH conference in L.A. was
described to me as follows: Each member in the audience was given a wand, while
supersensitive electronic equipment was calibrated to the totality of those
wands. When the thousand members in the audience waved and manipulated their
wands, the result was the creation of images of colors and movement on a
gigantic, full-wall electronic screen.
From a copyright standpoint, what resulted? Was it
graphical? Was it fixed? Was it a work of authorship?
Whose?
Was it even "art"?
These questions simply adumbrate in miniature the
completely unanticipated vistas that a world of interactive authorship might
show us. Most, if not all, doctrines of copyright law are destined to become
inapplicable, anachronistic, or at least severely distended, in such a brave new
world. For the High Priesthood of copyright to even contemplate such
potentialities might require the utmost in retooling. Not surprisingly,
contemplation of developments such as these was not much in evidence in Geneva.
(26)
Subsidiarity, The
Second Wave & The Little Sisters
Derived
from a papal encyclical, the term the subsidiarity principle has been adopted by
the European Union to mean at one and the same time:
·
"if and insofar as the
objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member
States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effect of the proposed
action, be better achieved by the Community’, and,
·
"decisions are taken as
closely as possible to the citizen",
In effect,
it means that the ‘Union’ targets policies and programs at the regional or
sub-national level, e.g. Sicily and Calabria, not at the national level, Italy.
(27) This has been the case with regional cultures, languages and the arts that
are being fostered in a way
the traditional nation states and their search for ‘national unity’, never
did. This has favored the fine arts
in that it has encouraged expression at the regional level; it has not favored
the fine arts in that the bulk of funding goes to ‘folk’ art rather than ‘high’
art.
In the English-speaking world a similar phenomenon is
the ‘Second Wave’ of arts councils created in the 1980s. Funded by lottery monies a new set of
‘arm’s length’ arts councils appear in the 1980s at the provincial and state
level in Canada and the USA and at the national level in the UK during the
1990s. Funded by monies either
rejected by fine arts councils, e.g. Canada (28) or never offered (UK), this
Second Wave tends to support amateur, community, folk or ‘grass roots’ art
activities. In the English-speaking
world this has, as in Europe, favored the fine arts in that it has encouraged
expression at the regional level and not favored them in that the bulk of
funding tends to go to ‘folk’ or ‘community’ rather than ‘high’
art.
By ‘folk’ arts I mean post-modern, multicultural urban
folk art that sometimes rises to a ‘fine art’. A case in point is that the Canada
Council for the Arts now recognizes ‘Classical Indian Dance’ as a distinct fine
arts discipline like ballet. The
fine arts in a global economy includes more than traditional Western European
fine arts. The impact of Japanese
prints in the late 19th and early 20th centuries on
painting in Europe is an early example of the ‘cross pollination’ that can be
expected in future.
Related to growing support to ‘provincial’, ‘regional’
or ‘state’ cultures is the concept of ‘The Little Sisters”. (29) A fundamental
characteristic of cultural goods and services is that they are carriers of
'values' rather than utilitarian function like a coffee pot, automobile or bank
account. The importance of 'values' is apparent in the ongoing debate about
'cultural sovereignty'. One side
argues that national and regional identity is based upon a distinct set of
values embodied in cultural goods and services. Even in the United States, some
are now raising this argument as foreign interests increasingly acquire American
cultural enterprise. Some point to
the rising tide of regionalism within formerly unified states such as the Soviet
Union and Canada as evidence of the importance of cultural sovereignty. These regional cultures, or ‘little
sisters', contend with the homogenizing and standardizing influence of a global
'Big Brother' culture that today is essentially American. Protection of diversity of regional and
indigenous cultures is likely to become as important in the 21st century as the
environmental or ‘Green’ movement of the 20th. If it is important to maintain the rain
forest for purposes of biodiversity, is it not equally important to preserve the
indigenous cultures that live within them?
As the 21st century opens, the fine arts find
themselves between a rock and a hard place with respect to public funding. On the one hand, market realism and the
search for cultural sovereignty is fuelling the attempt by governments around
the world to develop a financially viable entertainment arts industry to compete
with the American super-culture.
This leaves the fine arts competing for government funding with a much
better organized and politically acceptable sector of the arts industry.
On the other hand, new public monies flowing from
lotteries in the English-speaking world and through application of subsidiarity
in the European Union are flowing to the amateur or community-based arts. This yet again leaves the fine arts
competing for public funding with a more politically acceptable sector of the
arts industry.
In both cases the shift from the politics of elite
accommodation to the politics of polls has isolated the ‘elite’ fine arts from
an increasingly egalitarian political process. What are the fine arts to do? In my opinion they must first ‘position’
themselves within a more broadly defined arts industry made up of the amateur,
applied, entertainment, fine and heritage arts. To do so the fine arts must articulate
their contribution to the more politically acceptable, economically important
and less controversial sectors of the industry, e.g. serving as the research and
development sector. In turn, the
fine arts must help articulate why the arts industry as a whole is increasingly
important to the economic and political competitiveness of
nations.
(1)
Chartrand, H.H. & C. McCaughey, “The Arm's Length Principle & The Arts:
An International Perspective - Past, Present & Future”, in Who's to Pay? for the Arts: The
International Search for Models of Support, M.C. Cummings Jr & J. Mark
Davidson Schuster (eds.), American Council for the Arts, NYC, 1989.
http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/arm's.htm
(2)
Cummings, M.C., Schuster, J.M.D. (eds),
Who's to Pay? for the Arts: The International Search for Models of Support,
American Council for the Arts, NYC, 1989.
(3) Baumol, W., W. Bowen, The Performing Arts: The Economic
Dilemma, Twentieth Century Fund, New York City, 1966.
(4)
Baumol, W., H. Baumol, "The Mass Media and the Cost Disease", in The Economics of Cultural Industries, W.
Hendon, N. Grant, D. Shaw (eds), Association for Cultural Economics, University
of Akron, 1984.
(5)
Chartrand, H.H., An Economic Impact
Assessment of the Canadian Fine Arts, full monograph presented to: Third International
Conference on Cultural Economics & Planning, Akron, Ohio, April
1984.
http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/eia.htm
"Arts Education and the Bottom Line in a Post-Modern
Economy: Two Variations on a Theme" in Living Traditions in Art: First
International Symposium, B. White, L.M. Hart (eds.), Department of
Education, McGill University, 1990.
Chartrand, H.H., “Christianity, Censorship &
Copyright in English-speaking Cultures”, in Culture and Democracy: Social and Ethical
Issues in Public Support for the Arts and Humanities, Andrew Buchwalter,
(ed), Westview, Boulder, 1992.
http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/Christianity,%20Copyright%20&%20Censorship.htm
Chartrand, H.H., “Copyright C.P.U.: Creators,
Proprietors & Users”, Journal of Arts
Management, Law & Society, Vol. 30, No. 3, Fall 2000.
http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/cpu.htm
(6) Bell, D., The
Coming of Post-Industrial Society, New York, Basic Books,
1976.
(7)
Henderson, J.L., Cultural Attitudes in Psychological
Perspective, Inner City Books, Toronto, 1984.
(8) Chartrand, H.H., “Context & Continuity:
Philistines, Pharisees & Art in English Culture”, Journal of Arts Management and Law, Vol.
21, No. 2, Summer 1991b.
http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/Context%20&%20Continuity.htm
(9)
Le
Figaro” Patrimoine”, 31 May
1980.
(10) Wilson, Honourable Michael, Securing Economic Renewal: Budget Papers,
Department of Finance, Ottawa, 23 May 1985.
(11) Glasgow, M., "The Concept of the Arts Council," in Milo
Keynes, ed. Essays on John Maynard
Keynes, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1975.
(12) Education, Science and Arts Committee, Public and Private Funding of the Arts,
Eighth Report, House of Commons, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, UK,
1982. (13) The Economist, "French Arts in the Doldrums: Bonjour Tristesse,", 3 August 1985, pp. 77-84.
(14) Bladen, V., The
Financing of the Performing Arts in Canada, Canada Council, Ottawa,
1971.
(15) Keller, . A.S., Contemporary European Arts Support
Systems, National Endowment for the Arts, National Partnership Meeting, Marvin
Center, George Washington University, June 1980.
(16) Keller, .
A.S., Op.cit.
(17) Martin, B., A Sociology of Contemporary Change,
Blackwell, Oxford, 1981.
(18) Kay, W.D., "Toward a Theory of
Cultural Policy in Non-Market, Ideological Societies", Journal of Cultural Economics, December
1983.
(19) Education, Science and Arts Committee, Op. cit.
(20) Huntington, S., "The Clash of
Civilizations," Foreign Affairs,
Summer 1993, pp. 22-49.
(21) Hillman, J., Egalitarian Typologies
versus the Perception of the Unique, Eranso Lectures, Spring Publications,
Dallas, Texas, 1980
(22) Southam, G.H., “Striving for Excellence: Mass/Elite
Tensions in Cultural Policies”, Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada,
Series V, Volume IV, 1989, pp. 181-189.
(23) Wyzomirski, M.J. (ed), The Independent Commission’s Report to
Congress on the National Endowment for the Arts, Journal of Arts Management
& Law, Vol. 20, No. 3, Fall 1990
(24) Chartrand, H.H., “Towards An American Arts Industry”, in
The Public Life of the Arts in
America, J. Cherbo & M. Wyszomirski (eds), Rutgers University Press,
April 2000.
http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/Towards.ht
(25) Op. cit
(26) Nimmers, D., “Time and Space”, IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology,
1998.
(27) Chartrand, H.H., “Canada and the European Community:
Cultural Policy Commonalities & Convergence”, Arts Bulletin, Vol. 15, No. 2, Canadian
Conference of the Arts, Spring 1991a.
http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/converge.htm
(28) Chartrand, H.H. & J. Ruston, Lotteries & the Arts: The Canadian
Experience 1970 to 1980, Research & Evaluation, Canada Council, Ottawa,
August 1981. (29) Vettraino-Soulard, M-C., "Media in the World of 1984", in Understanding 1984, Canadian Commission for Unesco, December 1983.
|